Do you know any Gay Men who are AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage?
Meaning they don''t support same-sex marriage and believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and are openly gay.\
Know anyone like that?\
Not personally, but in the past there have been some gay celebrities who haven''t been that enthusiastic:\
John Barrowman (although I think he changed his mind)\
The above celebs have said Same-Sex Marriage is not an issue for them, but they didn''t out-and-out say they were AGAINST same-sex marriage.
I''m not against it, I just don''t understand why gays are so all fired hot for it. If I was in the position to want some sort of legal partnership with someone I''d much rather have full domestic partner benefits as long as I got the same rights as straight married people have. \
I don''t want anything that straights have. I just want the same benefits but I want gays to have them in a way that straights can''t. Who knows, if we got our own rights that were on par with the straight community they might just start whining about wanting what we have eventually and we can shit all over them for a change.
On Larry King, Tab Hunter was asked if he would marry his partner. He said he didn''t think society was ready for gay marriage yet.
I think Dolce and/or Gabbana stated they were again SSM, also Karl Lagerfeld.
It seems no one knows anyone PERSONALLY who is against SSM.
"I think Dolce and/or Gabbana stated they were again SSM"\
The underwear company?
Yes. Then again, this is DC, where Log Cabinettes run aplenty.
Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Barrack Obama, to name a few.
Have Cruise and Travolta said they are against it?
Not a gay man, but a lesbian.
Eve Tushnet, the celibate, lesbian, conservative, Catholic writer is anti-gay marriage.
Ms. Tushnet wrote in a 2007 essay for Commonweal. While gay sex should not be criminalized, gay men and lesbians should abstain. They might instead have passionate friendships, or sublimate their urges into other pursuits. "It turns out I happen to be very good at sublimating," she says, while acknowledging that that is a lot to ask of others.
Marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, whose "relationships can be either uniquely dangerous or uniquely fruitful. Thus it makes sense to have an institution dedicated to structuring and channeling them."
But same-sex marriage, she wrote in The New York Post in 2007, "can bring one of three outcomes: A two-tiered marriage culture, where heterosexual couples are asked to do the hard things (sex only within marriage, marriage for life in most circumstances) and homosexual couples work out their own marriage norms; reshape marriage into an optional, individualized institution, ignoring the creative and destructive potentials of %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%98straight%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99 sex; or encourage all couples to restrict sex to marriage and marry for life, and hope that gay couples accept norms designed to meet heterosexual needs."
I am a gay man and while I am not "against it", I too think the initiative is indeed prompted by some sort of straight envy....as if to say "See, I am the same as you. And just as good as you!" %0D\
Unfortunately, having gay marriage become legal will bring ALL the same issues straights have when they were married and then some. And the same tackyness.%0D\
Fortunately for me, gay marriage does not disrupt my preferred, less conservative or restrictive way of moving through life, so what the hell, have your splashy weddings. Maybe I am for it after all.
I know gays who are against same-sex marriage, but not for the same reasons that the fundies are. Many gays who oppose marriage would argue that marriage is an outdated and repressive institution that was created to dominate women and to limit sexual expression. Therefore, in their view, the solution to the marriage situation is not to allow gays and lesbians to marry their partners but to abolish the institution of marriage altogether.
There are gays and lesbians who are against SSM because they are against the institution of marriage, period.%0D\
Then there are gays and lesbians who are screwed up about their sexuality, even though they''re out (like the nutty Eve Tushnet mentioned above), primarly based on conflicts between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation. These are people who are against SSM.%0D\
I recall some gay male crank in CA during the Prop 8 campaign who showed up here and there spouting the "marriage is between a man and woman" crap.
Younger conservatives still draw a sharp distinction between opposition to gay marriage and being "anti-gay." And many who oppose gay marriage said they would be fine with domestic partnerships or civil unions.
But many conservatives are jumping on the 'pro-same-sex marriage debate'
Saying that supporting gay rights is inherently conservative.
"Conservatism and gay rights are actually natural allies," said S.E. Cupp, conservative columnist and author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity." "Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it's this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is essentially making."
This is how institutions evolve and emerge within a conservative culture," says Jon Henke, a libertarian-leaning blogger. "In time, gay people will be married, extending the valuable social institution of marriage to more people. In time, conservatives will argue that the positive impact that marriage has on the gay community is further evidence of the importance of the institution of marriage."
National Review's Dan Foster believes the changing attitudes are largely generational, but added that "a central thread of conservatism, going back to Edmund Burke, is . . . gradualism."
Even Fox News host Glenn Beck recently said he thinks government should stay out of the gay marriage debate.
A lot of the ''con'' guys are probably bi and choose the gay option to avoid paying for wifey and kids.
I''m with the gays that Jesseboy/R13 knows. I think it''s an outdated construct and everyone should have civil ceremonies, then you can get the religious fairy dust sprinkled on top of your commitment if you''re that way inclined.\
My personal issue with gay marriage is that I see it purely as a religious event, and if I was straight I''d opt for a civil ceremony anyway. On the other hand I don''t think gay people should be discriminated against for wanting to get married if they want to.
Most people who are gay and want to get married want it for the civil, legal and financial rights it bestows, not for the religious or ''imitating heterosexuals'' reasons.
I suspect Ms. Tushnet isn''t really gay but she has found a niche in a difficult employment environment of being the paid idiot.%0D
Karl Lagerfeld argues that the hetero ideal of marriage is a very bourgeois concept and that gay men should be above such pedestrian platitudes.\
I tend to agree with him. \
As gay men we have a lot of privileges that straight people don''t have. Most of all a sense of freedom. Straight people have all sorts of social burdens and ties that bind them. We have none of that.\
For the life of me I don''t understand why some gay men want to anchor themselves down with a fucking spouse and kids. \
We are gay men. We are privileged with the ability to come and go as we please. Not be tied down by anything. To earn money for ourselves and ONLY ourselves. Not having to worry about an ungrateful household.
[quote]I think it''s an outdated construct and everyone should have civil ceremonies, then you can get the religious fairy dust sprinkled on top of your commitment if you''re that way inclined.%0D\
Whether marriage is outdated or not, I''m all for recognizing civil partnerships (gay and straight) as the basis for recognizing relationships equally under law. %0D\
The rights secured by a courthouse, city hall, or Vegas wedding hall certificate should be the goal. If Catholics or Quakers or Hindus want to squabble with their respective religions about the religious aspect, let them have at it; religious institutions'' attitudes on what''s sacred in marriage don''t bother me unless the government permits them the opportunity to interfere outside their realm. %0D\
While I don't know any gay people who conform to the "marriage is between a man and a woman" train of thought, I know plenty who oppose or at least resist it. Usually they cite these reasons:
1) Gay people don't need heterosexual traditions or ceremonies to sanctify anything in their lives.
2) Man isn't meant to be monogomous -- why should gay people buy into heterosexual conventions that propogate that lie.
3) Marriage is part social tradition and part religious tradition -- if I am already out to my friends and family, then why buy into the notion that I need to stand in front of a congregation or a reception to declare what everyone already knows. It's pointless or just an excuse to beg for gifts. If I want to throw a party to celebrate ANY part of my life (my birthday, my love of another man), I don't need the state or local government to give me permission to do that.
4) Why get married in ONE state when there are 40 others that will not recognize the status. Until FEDERAL same sex marriage is recognized (i.e.: Social Security rights, taxes, etc) why expend the energy on STATE marriage rights for gays.
I had quite a number of friends who opposed gay marriage in the 1990s, on the theoretical argument that marriage was inherently an instrument of heterosexual oppression. But then the "gay baby" revolution took place, and all of them changed their minds. Theory met up with the reality of adoption and inheritance laws.
as well it should have.
[quote]Karl Lagerfeld argues that the hetero ideal of marriage is a very bourgeois concept and that gay men should be above such pedestrian platitudes.\
He also believes that gay men should dress like duennas entirely in either white or black, covering themselves up entirely from wrist to chin, and carry fans.\
He''s hardly any intelligent person''s ethical compass.
R4. Tab Hunter is 79. Surprising for him to say that society isn''t ready for gay marriage; however, it is a generational thing with some people his age.
Okay, and Lindsay Graham.
[quote]For the life of me I don''t understand why some gay men want to anchor themselves down with a fucking spouse and kids. \
I agree, R21, well with the kids part anyway. I was a little sad at NPH''s recent "we''re expecting twins" statement. I guess some gay guys have that breeding instinct but I just thought "how boring and straight of him and David Burtka to be being all conventional and breeding". I love the fact that as a gay man I don''t have to feel guilty about not procreating; kids suck.
Yes, the Pope and about 20% of the Republican men in Congress.
I''m against it for myself; and I''m not convinced that its not another way to just assimilate and be like the straights, but if other gay guys want to get married more power to them.
I am against gay marriage because I see it as a religious union between a man and a woman. %0D\
However, I''m all for civil-unions that would give gay couples civil, legal and financial rights.%0D\
Sorry commenters on page 1, Elton John did specifically say that all gay people should not have marriage but civil partnerships instead.
in my experience gay men who are against ssm are either:\
1. Incredibly wealthy and privileged and therefore don''t especially need the rights and benefits that marriage provides (ie no one is ever going to keep Elton John from his partner''s bedside in the event of a health crisis)\
2.Single and embittered and/or attached to the notion that the fight for ssm right somehow infringes on their radical queerness
If civil partnerships will give gay couples the rights they want, why are they still pushing for gay marriage? Let straights have marriage and the rights that come with it. And gays have civil parnerships and the rights that come with it. Unless one is significantly less than the other - why the stress?
I''m gonna preface this by saying that I''m a gay man. I am out and proud and love being a gay man. I have never had sex with a woman nor would I want to. I can''t even imagine being straight.\
All that said, I don''t understand why my fellow gay men and women want to get married. All of the arguments that I''ve heard as to why we need gay marriage can be taken care of with attorneys and contracts. Neither the government now Jesus needs to sanction and certify my love for someone else.\
I''m sure that I''m going to be called names, but that is the way I feel. \
I''m also against gay adoptions.
I thought I read somewhere that in France all marriages are civil marriages. Religious officials can''t sign marriage certificates, only government officials can. Anyone know?
R37 why are you against gay adoption? Do you believe a child should be raised by a mother and father?
Why against gay adopting r37?
"why we need gay marriage can be taken care of with attorneys and contracts."\
Bullshit. Do some research before you say this type of thing. SO many of the rights and benefits of marriage can never be had from an attorney ever...\
And even if that WERE the case, why should we have to pay hundreds or even thousands in attorney''s fees when any other couple can go down to city hall and get the same thing (and a LOT more airtight... Lots of nightmare stories about the attorney papers not meaning a thing when push came to shove) in 20 minutes for $30.\
Utter bullshit. Equality. Why is this so hard for people.\
Marriage is a HUMAN right. It belongs to PEOPLE. Not straight people, not Christians, not white people. It is a right of PEOPLE. It is part of our SHARED tradition. You do not exist outside of history. The right to choose a spouse of the same sex has not traditionally been recognized, but that does not mean the right does not exist or can be abridged to suit the fleeting prejudice of a few religitards.
I agree with R37. Apart from the adoption thing. I mean I never want to have kids myself (as a gay man) but I don''t see why a loving gay or lesbian couple shouldn''t be allowed to raise and love an orphan/abandoned child. The arguments against it just don''t really stand up.
I eat shit
But marriage is not a religious union, r33, is it? Mixed faith, no faith - it is no bar to het marriage according to the law and any restrictions are imposed by the religion, personal beliefs or particular culture, not the state.
it is immaturity on the part those fighting for marriage ... let''s leave marriage traditional and fight for equal benefits under the law ... it really looks silly%0D\
gays tend for the drama and in your face "no you didn''t" drag queen stance%0D\
it is pure hubris and is nonsense
Why are people angry at r37 for being against gay adoption, but not for being against gay marriage? You can make similar arguments against both. I''m also iffy on gay adoption.
"equal benefits under the law"\
We''ll never get equal benefits without the word "marriage." Read the NJ report. \
Separate status is used as the basis for discrimination. Open a history textbook. Separate is STILL not equal and for all the same reasons.
I''m not against it but I''m not for it, either. Maybe it''s because I don''t have a partner. It''s possible to get the same legal rights that married people do without having to get married. It will be interesting to see what the divorce rate percentages are going to be if ever gays can unequivically marry. Why would you want to put yourselves through that?
I''m for it, but I believe most gay men are unwilling to keep their vow to 1) be faithful, and 2) do so until death do us part. Lesbians, on the other hand, are just too ornery to stay together and have to split up before they kill each other. So even when we get it, I don''t think it''s going to work out too well for us.
What I would like to see is marriage licenses that expire.\
I can''t think of any other license that one can get that doesn''t expire. A driver''s license, a hunting license, any type of professional license has an expiration date.\
Why doesn''t a marriage license expire?\
What God has brought together, let no man put asunder.\
The hell with that.\
Any two people who want to get married should apply for a license and that license should be good for a certain period of time - say 5 years.\
During that time no married person could get divorced or married to another. As a marriage license nears its expiration date, a couple could renew it or just let it expire.
R46=self loathing panty stain.
Well, I''m a bi girl here, but I''m gonna weigh in anyways.\
I''m wary of same-sex marriage because I fear that once ssm is achieved, people will throw in the towel on gay rights and say that the battle is won. In fact, the gay community faces so many other hurdles in addition to not being able to have the rights of married couples, and I think those other issues are being forgotten right now.
The people who are against same sex marriages, must be 50 years old and over. No one can be that stupid who''s young and not brainwashed.
Gay marriage will equal an increase in gay republicans, mark my words. \
Any way, I have yet to hear anything in this debate about being in love and wanting to have a true partner. It''s always about benefits and health insurance and survivor''s rights. Never about love. \
As for gay adoption... I know I''m gonna be called every bad name in the book, but I''m gonna say it. I think children benefit from having a mother and a father. \
I have nothing against gay couples who adopt or go the surrogacy route. In fact, I applaud them and their ability to share their lives and their hearts. I just believe that a child needs a mother and a father. Mothers and fathers bring different things to a child''s emotional and social development. \
Women nurture and protect in ways that guys can''t. Men nurture and protect in ways that women can''t. It all balances out.
Gay marriage will equal an increase in gay republicans, mark my words. \
Dumbest thing I''ve read on DL in years.\
Gay marriage is NOT about ''aping'' heterosexuals or turning into right-leaning pod-people.\
Even if you are a gay man or woman who will never get married or have children, you should understand the HUGE importance this issue has (and will have) on gay rights in general.
[quote]I''m wary of same-sex marriage because I fear that once ssm is achieved, people will throw in the towel on gay rights and say that the battle is won. In fact, the gay community faces so many other hurdles in addition to not being able to have the rights of married couples, and I think those other issues are being forgotten right now.\
I don''t think that will happen, but what other unresolved issues have you got in mind, R52/Bi-Girl?
I think if you make the decision not to date a girl, then you have to take responsibility for your choices, and that means not having equal rights, so stop bitching and whining about it.\
You made the choice not to date women, so deal with it.\
I''m a bisexual guy, and I think there have to be certain perks for steeping up to the plate and choosing to date a girl. I know some will say it''s not a choice, but after years of guys talking to me it''s obvious it is.\
I mean look at porn, there are lots of straight guys that have gay sex all the time, and Look at Blake Riley or other would did the straight for pay thing, he is gay and choose to have straight sex and really enjoyed it, reading all the comments on blogs and forums, the word was, allay men should explore their sexuality and date girls. Once you do you realize that the sex is good and yeah you can screw a guy the odd time, but there are perks from being big enough to deal with sexuality and stop bitching about and deciding to have straight sex.
So, r58, the only way to make it worthwhile to marry a girl is to attach all sorts of "perks" via the government? \
That seems to be what you''re saying, r58... That in order to keep men marrying women, the gov needs to put its thumb on the scale of justice and weight it down and distribute "perks" unequally. Otherwise, if all things were equal, people might have the liberty to choose their own life, choose who they marry and how they want to be happy.
This place can be more fucked up than Free Republic
You have a bizarre way of looking at the world, r59.\
I''d ignore R58, R59, I just assumed he was a troll and f&fed him. Either way, they''re a douchebag.
[quote] "I am against gay marriage because I see it as a religious union between a man and a woman." R33 & R36 \
If marriage is a religious institution, then why is possible to obtain a marriage license from the state and marry without ever stepping inside church but it is not possible to marry in a church without first obtaining a license from the state?\
Why do you think the state should impose your personal religious beliefs on everyone else?
No r59, but you can date a woman if you want, and choose not to, I have no issue with that I wish you the best of luck , but All I''m saying, is for those of us who have decide to step up to the plate and date girls, well that has mean something, there has to be some sort of, I don''t know.. reward I suppose for doing that. Choosing to date a woman has to mean something, and that''s being given more privileges than those guys that are too self-centred and hedonistic and lazy to stay in empty, open, meaningless same sex relationships.\
Now if you choose to stay in same-sex relationships, I have no problem with that and support your right to stray in those SS relationships, but have to responsibility for you decisions
[quote]Gay marriage is NOT about ''aping'' heterosexuals or turning into right-leaning pod-people.%0D\
I read Datalounge. While this site isn''t representative of the entire gay community, it gives insight into certain thoughts that people will never say out loud. %0D\
You can pretend that its not the case, but gay marriage/gay civil rights is the only thing holding a good number of gay people in the democratic party. %0D\
As for aping heteros, I don''t agree with that, but I do think that some gay people have an entirely skewed view of what marriage is.%0D\
And the focus on marriage has cost us several positive steps forward in the overall fight for gay civil rights. %0D\
Gay organizations, at the grassroots level, were making positive gains in state legislatures in regards to our fight for equality. The focus on marriage has been anathema to civil rights. %0D
I know a ''name'' who works in Hollywood (not an actor or actress) who believes that legalizing gay marriage would make gay people less interesting. He''s not for it.
What r58 said!
"You can pretend that its not the case, but gay marriage/gay civil rights is the only thing holding a good number of gay people in the democratic party. "\
I''ve been on Datalounge for over a decade and while there are a small number of log cabin here, MOST of us are liberal democrats through and through and care about many more issues when we vote than just gay civil rights. Education, the environment, the economy, health care -- all issues I consider when I vote. And guess which party is more aligned on the correct side of all of those? NOT the GOP, as maddening and imperfect as the Democrats are these days....
I have a friend who is against ssm. He is from Argentina and is somewhat religious, so maybe that''s why. He''s very out and proud and loves his lifestyle, but I have heard him say a few times that he wants someday to get married (to a woman) and have kids.
[quote]Gay marriage is NOT about ''aping'' heterosexuals or turning into right-leaning pod-people.%0D\
Just look up thread at the conservatives who are of the opinion that SSM is the conservative stance. There are plenty of gays who, once married, will follow the same line of thought. They will end up looking at unmarried gays "Peter Pans" who are hopelessly immature.%0D\
I am for SSM, but not so naive to think that many of the people who want to follow a traditional path won''t end up in a party that loudly touts traditional values.%0D
R58/ 64 is obviously making the point that closeted gay men, feel they should have privileges for being so fucking miserable and living a sham life. That''s pretty much the deal for freeper closeted guys. Because they have made the effort to stay in the closet they receive "rewards for it" and they don''t want a man who lives an open happy gay life having the same rights as them.\
Self-loathing fags are gay peoples biggest threat to equality.
Elton John is legally married in the UK, is he not?
There is no gay marriage in the UK, charlie. They have civil unions.
[quote]You can pretend that its not the case, but gay marriage/gay civil rights is the only thing holding a good number of gay people in the democratic party.\
I agree with you in that it does keep a good number of gays voting democratic, but do not think it should imply it keeps a majority voting democratic.\
I think a majority would still vote liberal even with complete equality, at least for a generation or two, because as oppressed minorities, we have learned a lot about looking out for those down and out. We sympathize and empathize better than most because of it. So even if we got equality, we would still care about the poor, those without health insurance, etc. because we can relate better to an unequal situation.
I never forgot this article I've read years ago. This story shows how important it is for gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples. It's really heartbreaking.
[bold]Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law[/bold]
On the face of it, Sam Beaumont, 61, with his cowboy hat, deep-throated chuckle and Northwestern drawl, is not so different from the ranch hands in Ang Lee's critically acclaimed film "Brokeback Mountain," which opened in Indianapolis on Wednesday. More "Romeo & Juliet" than "Rent," "Brokeback Mountain" challenges modern perceptions of what it means to be gay in rural America. "Listen," the character Twist says to del Mar as part of a dream that goes unrealized. "I'm thinking, tell you what, if you and me had a little ranch together -- little cow and calf operation, your horses -- it'd be some sweet life."
That pretty much describes the life Beaumont had. He settled down with Earl Meadows and tended 50 head of cattle for a quarter-century on an Oklahoma ranch. "I was raised to be independent. I didn't really care what other people thought," Beaumont said. In 1977, Beaumont was divorced and raising three sons after a dozen years in the Air Force when Meadows walked up to him near the Arkansas River.
"It was a pretty day -- January 15th, 65 degrees," Beaumont said. "He came up, we got to talkin' till 2 in the morning. I don't even remember what we said." But "I knew it was something special." Beaumont moved to be with Meadows in his partner's hometown of Bristow, Okla., a place of 4,300 people. Together, they bought a ranch and raised Beaumont's three sons. The mortgage and most of the couple's possessions were put in Meadows' name.
During the day, Meadows worked as a comptroller for Black & Decker. He'd drop the boys at school on his way to work. At home, Beaumont took care of the ranch, feeding and tagging cattle, cooking and cleaning, and once built a barn.
"As far as I was concerned, I had two dads," said one of Beaumont's sons, now 33, who requested anonymity. He was 2 years old when Meadows joined the family. "Dad helped with schoolwork and all the stuff around the house, taught me to ride horses and milk cows. Earl used to take me to the company picnics and Christmas parties. He bought me my first car." Most of their friends, Beaumont said, were straight couples, women who worked at Black & Decker, "teachers and doctors and lawyers," and childhood friends of Meadows who often came to dinner at the ranch.
"People treated them fine," said Eunice Lawson, who runs a grocery store in Bristow.
But in 1999, Meadows had a stroke and Beaumont took care of him for a year until he died at age 56. That's where the fantasy of a life together on the range collides with reality. After a quarter-century on the ranch he shared with his partner, Beaumont lost it all on a legal technicality in a state that doesn't recognize domestic partnerships.
Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature. A judge ruled the rancher had to put the property, which was appraised at $100,000, on the market. The animals were sold. Beaumont had to move.
Because Meadows had no biological children or surviving parents, his estate was divided up among his heirs. When the ranch sells, the proceeds are to be divided among dozens of Meadows' cousins. "They took the estate away from me," said Beaumont, who said he put about $200,000 of his own money into the ranch. "Everything that had Earl's name on it, they took. They took it all and didn't bat an eye."
Every state has common-law marriage rules that protect heterosexual couples. If someone dies without a will, or with a faulty one, his or her live-in partner is treated as the rightful inheritor.\
But only seven states currently give gay couples protections -- such as inheritance rights and health benefits -- through marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. What''s more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.\
Today, there are roughly 90,000 gay couples living in small-town America, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, and more than 5,700 in Oklahoma.\
Last year, Beaumont moved to nearby Wewoka, Okla., to a one-bedroom place with 350 acres for his horses, white Pyrenees and Great Dane to roam. He said he was continuing to fight the cousins, who are suing for back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.
Thanks for posting that horrible story, R75.\
Marriage matters, folks. Maybe not for you, but definitely for others. And to the idiots who post that legal documents can make up for lack of marriage -- read that story again. His dead partner''s cousins are suing him for back rent. Jesus Fucking Christ.
"There are plenty of gays who, once married, will follow the same line of thought."\
Bullshit... And even if that WERE the case, it''s STILL not a legitimate reason for withholding civil rights from people. "They might turn Republican, and therefore don''t deserve civil rights."\
What a fucktard.\
Bitter gay men without boyfriends are the only gays who oppose ssm rights, and they prop up their bitterness with specious reasoning.\
But bear in mind: the right to marry the person of your choice is the STARTING line of human equality. You will never truly get other rights, genuine acceptance, tolerance, any meaningful place in society, or whatever it is you''re after without it.... even if you choose NOT to marry.
r71 speaks the truth.
"but have to responsibility for you decisions"\
And so you''re saying, r64, that it''s the government''s job to mandate the consequences of choosing a same sex spouse by distributing rights and benefits unequally.... That''s retarded... and impossible to reconcile with our government''s foundational promises of liberty and equality..
You have to consider on what level they are objecting to it. \
If it is because they don''t feel same-sex couples can commit to each other as "normal" marrieds do, or feel we shouldn''t be entitled to the rights and benefits of marriage, then they''re self-hating assholes, and have at them.\
But some people do object based on the religious connotation of "marriage" as a sacrament, and I can let them have that, so long as they don''t object to a legal equivalent for marriage that provides the exact same rights and benefits, even though it be called something else.
R77, here is an update from a Dallas newspaper:\
[quote]When his partner died, so, too, did Mr. Beaumont''s idyllic life and regimented livelihood. He lost his best friend, and he subsequently lost the ranch, which is why he''s living in abject poverty 40 miles away in Cromwell. Mr. Beaumont sighs as the orange embers hiss and the TV makes white noise in the background. He''s thinking about Earl again, and despite how good the good-old-days were, those thoughts always make him hurt. \
This story still makes me angry. Poor man lost his partner, his home and lives in poverty. Damn!
Reading comprehension is hard R78. But keep trying, you''ll get better at it!
[quote]Bitter gay men without boyfriends are the only gays who oppose ssm rights, and they prop up their bitterness with specious reasoning.%0D\
And there you have it folks. In one angry reply, the reason why the gay marriage movement has fucked up the gay rights movement. %0D\
"Ewww, look at those awful single gays with their mulitple partners and presenting their holes. They really aren''t like us."
R81 - Exactly.
SO. By your reasoning in post #84, are we to infer you are a multiple partner public sex fan?
Let''s see, R37. Will private contracts entitle my partner to Social Security and private disability insurance survivor benefits? How about estate taxation, and joint filing of federal income taxes?
I am against any State sanctioned marriage. Marriage is a religious insitution. The State has no business performing marriages. The State should recognize civil unions for everyone. Every household should have a tax break as a household. That being said ...
No, r84... I support your right to sleep with as many people as you want. Or to sleep with no one. Or to marry a woman. Or to marry a man. To marry the PERSON OF YOUR CHOICE or to not marry at all.\
Don''t take a stand against MY right to have my relationship recognized as equal under the law.\
It''s just like we''re always having to tell the fundies: The recognition of MY rights and equality does not infringe on YOUR rights and equality. Get it?
r90 gets it at least.
"people do object based on the religious connotation of "marriage" as a sacrament, "\
There is no single one religion.\
The institution of marriage predates Christianity and monotheism. It''s common to many cultures and many religions, and some of those cultures and religions included the tradition of same sex marriage. \
Moreover, we have a freedom of religion in this country... What if I want to have a traditional Native American bedarache (same sex) marriage or a Yoruba same sex marriage ceremony or get married within one of the many Christian denominations that recognize same sex marriage or by the ancient pagan gods of Rome or something etc etc?! Hmm?! What then? What reason would the gov offer for PRIVILEGING one set of religious beliefs over another? When that violates the First Amendment establishment clause? Hmmmm? Because X set of beliefs is more popular? Hmmmm?
"Most people who are gay and want to get married want it for the civil, legal and financial rights it bestows, not for the religious or ''imitating heterosexuals'' reasons."%0D\
Ah, now we ae talking. So it is all about the MONEY!!!
You are an idiot, r94.
[quote]It''s possible to get the same legal rights that married people do without having to get married.%0D\
This is not true. Not anywhere in the US. All civil union and/ or legal contracts are LESS THEN the legal rights of marraige.%0D\
Don''t buy the opposition''s press folks.
It''s like a rigged shell game with the anti-same sex marriage crowd.\
"You think it''s about love? Well, no one''s stopping you from loving someone else. You think it''s about civil equality? Nope, marriage is a religious ceremony. You think it''s about rights and benefits? How shallow! Marriage is about love!!!"\
"Under this one? Nope... It''s not there! Under here? Nope!!!"
LIBERTY & EQUALITY, PEOPLE... It''s really not that difficult.
Without going in circles, r94 makes a point. %0D\
Do you want to marry your boyfriend for love or so you can collect his estate when he''s dead?
I want to marry my boyfriend to have all the same rights and benefits and legal recognition and protections that straight couples get as a matter of course and as a matter of their privilege, r98. I want to marry my boyfriend because it is my fundamental right to marry the person of my choice and he is the person of my choice. I want to marry my boyfriend because I want this country to make good on its promise of freedom and equality.\
If you had a boyfriend, you''d understand.
Thanks for the shell game. But I''m not playing.
And, r98, would you address that question to your straight friends and family who marry or only to gay people? \
"I''m looking forward to the wedding, but tell me, Cynthia... are you marrying James out of love or so you can collect his estate when he''s dead? You gotta admit I''ve got a point."
R94 = It''s all about the money troll.
Wonder if r94 is even gay.
Don''t play games R100. %0D\
And yes R102 I am gay, I just will not walk in lock step with you. %0D\
Why does my seemingly non-majority opinion make a difference to any of you anyway, especially on this thread where the OP ASKED about non-standard opinions?
And your question R100 reeks of False equivalency.
Actually, I do it all the time r100. I think straight people get married for 3 reasons: 1) because they reach a point in dating where there is nothing else they can do, except get married. 2)they want a big party. 3)All of their friends are getting married and they don''t want to be left out. %0D\
Trust me, my anti-marriage feelings aren''t reserved just for my fellow gays.
[italic]Elton John is legally married in the UK, is he not?[/italic]\
It''s hardly false equivalency, r103... If you characterize gay people''s desire to marry as being motivated by shallow financial concerns, you should also question straight people on the same grounds... and you should do so as coarsely and directly as you questioned us, which of course you would never do.\
Some single gay men don''t really understand why others would want to get married. Fine. No surprises. \
Show me the gay couple that''s been together for 10-15-25 years that doesn''t think marriage is important and then we''ll talk.
R99, your relationship does not sound very serious and enduring if you are still calling him your boyfriend instead of your partner, and if you do not already have a civil union.%0D\
If you were really serious, he would be your ''partner'' and you would have a civil union.
I have a friend in his seventies who is adamantly against gay marriage. \
He''s also a mass-going Catholic and votes Republican. \
Of course, none of these beliefs has ever held him back from living the gay life to the extreme.\
He came out in the fifties, and I think he has a nostalgia for the gay underground of those days and the back alley sex and all that. (Actually, gay life in New York in the fifties does sound rather glamorous.) \
He also hates Gay Pride Week, rainbow flags, and any public display of gay awareness. \
Need I add that he is racist and sexist as well. He''s just a product of the age he grew up in. \
The only benefit he''s gotten from the "movement" is the proliferation of porn. He is totally addicted. Even watches it while eating dinner.
Yes, there are creeps like that around.\
People who wax nostalgic about the days when being gay meant sneaking around in the dark, literally and figuratively.
Fuck you, r108.\
My "boyfriend" and I have been together for 14 years. That''s well past the length of the average heterosexual marriage of 7 years.\
You play the "You don''t DESERVE marriage like your straight masters" shell game like a freeper pro.\
You are the reason you''re single.
And civil unions are only offered in a tiny handful of states, r108. And if you "civil union" someone they do not become your husband or your "civil unionate," they stay your partner or your boyfriend, and when you explain you have a civil union people think ''what''s that'' for a second and then remind themselves that''s the inferior ''married-like'' status they''ve doled out to the gays because they''re not as good as the straights.
Gay man in a 15 year relationship here.\
I am not against SSM, but it is not my #1 priority. I work for a public college in Virginia, where I have no employment protection for being gay. Our present Atty General is seeking to overturn all employment protection - even for private corporations that operate within the borders of the Commonwealth.\
I applied for a different job at my college, and was did not get the job because I am gay. I was told that I did not ''set a good example'' to work directly with young people. I have no recourse at this at all.\
So for me, a federal ENDA takes priority. Sure marriage would be great, but it is no help if I cannot work.
R114, why would you work for an institution that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation?\
They don''t deserve you.
It''s likely that watered down protection available in ENDA as it is currently written would not help you, R114.\
ENDA (S.1584) Section 4 g. reads: \
[quote]"Disparate Impact- Only disparate treatment claims may be brought under this Act."\
That means under ENDA your employers could still refuse to promote you on the basis that you would not provide a good example for youth, as long as they did not specifically cite your sexual orientation as the reason. An employment policy that states, "people holding this position must set a good example", whatever that might mean, might have the effect of excluding gay people (disparate impact) but since it does not exclude them specifically (disparate treatment), the policy would not be in violation of ENDA.
R114, I feel for you, especially because many years ago, my partner was turned down for a job at VA Tech because he is gay. %0D\
But marriage rights will put other non-discrimination initiatives on a fast-track. If same sex partners could legally wed in VA, Cuccinelli''s advocacy for employment discrimination would look small minded and mean. Most people will take an attitude of, "the war''s over, move on to something more productive" %0D\
BTW a few years after my partner was turned down for the VA Tech job, he ran in to the guy who made the decision. The VA Tech guy apologized. Progress is being made.
[quote]But marriage rights will put other non-discrimination initiatives on a fast-track. \
No it won''t. It just distracts everyone for the more important fight for gay civil rights and equal protections. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage, so its going to clog up everything else for the forseeable future. Republicans are against it, the Democrats aren''t going to touch it and the American people haven''t fully embraced it, which means most politicos aren''t going to expend the political capital. The gay marriage fight has ruined everything else. I''m sorry that so many of you can''t see that.
and we''re sorry that you''re so jaded and bitter you can''t see beyond that.
[R113] you are wrong on many, many levels.
In civil unions, your partner is your SPOUSE. That is the LEGAL definition of the "partner" in all civil union states.
The fact that you are weepy and pissy over insisting that the law call your boyfriend "husband" says a lot about your concern for the rights at issue. If the word is so important to you, you do know where it comes from, don't you? Just as the word "marriage" was a contract for "husbandry" (I'll give you a hint -- it had to do with the monetary expectations had for turning daughters over to procreate.)
To me, the idea of being pronounced "husband" and "husband" sounds ridiculous. Being "spouses" is perfectly fine with me.
Where you are correct, if you are not in a civil union state, is that there are real questions about running off to such a state to get such a union.
But this is as silly as the argument that "marriage" is the only way in these states when NEITHER same-sex marriages and civil unions are recognized under federal law. Once they are, they will still be perfectly equal when it comes to rights.
And if you care about "spousal rights" -- all the right to visit and make decisions for each other in peril -- you should not wait around for marriage and stay "boyfriends" over a WORD.
But R120, as we''ve seen in Hawaii, Republicans really don''t want us to have even civil unions. They SAY they do, so they can sound inclusive, but when it comes down to it, they''re opposed to civil unions as much as they are opposed to marriage. It''s not just the word ''marriage'', it''s gay people they hate.\
And look at polls. We are winning. Marriage equality gains in popularity every year. It''s not clear to me that settling for civil unions get us there any faster.
As a straight conservative woman, I don't know if my views are welcome on this board, but here goes:
Look to Loving vs. Virginia as the reason why Christian fundamentalist heterosexuals go ballistic over the idea of gay marriage. There are a lot of white pastors and judges who still don't believe in racial miscegenation, but are forced to marry an interracial couple or face draconian civil rights blowback.
If the government recognizes gay marriages, Christian fundamentalist heterosexuals see homosexual couples swarming into their churches demanding their "right" to be married there and prepared to sue them out of existence if they don't ... primarily to stick a thumb in their eyes, because their religious beliefs condemn homosexuality.
If this is NOT the case where the vast majority of gays are concerned. If this push for gay marriage is ONLY about enjoying the same rights as straight couples do then gays should push for marriage ceremonies and licenses to be replaced by nothing but civil unions at City Hall.
That way, anyone who needs a private or religious ceremony can have the marriage sacrament conducted at any church or religious institution that is prepared to marry them.
Rather than defining or redefining what marriage is to suit whatever special interest group is most vocal at any given moment, government needs to bow out of the marriage business altogether.
Only civil unions between two consenting non-related adults should be sanctioned by government and legal authorities. Marriages can be grandfathered in and recognized as civil unions (since couples still had to apply and pay for marriage licenses there) at City Hall.
IMO, with this economy and all the racial division in this country, there is no reason to make marriage another battlefield when it could and should be a non-issue.
I teach in a university and recently had a conversation with students and staff, where they were shocked to learn that people can be fired for being gay in most of the U.S.\
I think there is less of a push for ENDA because many straight people assume it is already the law!
It's a matter of equality, r120.
Why were black people so upset about drinking from different water fountains? It's just water, jeez, and the same water comes through the pipes. Why did it matter if they had to use separate rest rooms? The toilets flushed the same. Why would it matter where you sit on a bus? A seat's a seat, right?
They sure were hung up on PLUMBING and SEATING back in the day, weren't they?!?!
The problem with civil unions--though they are a step in the right direction--is that separate is not equal. Going to a segregated school is better than not being able to go to school at ALL, I suppose.
But the separate status is used as the basis for discrimination. We know this from history, and those of us who are paying attention know it in the present (see link).
The reason that choosing a spouse of the same sex is labeled "civil union" is because people think that choice is not as good, a "less than," and the government accomodates people by maintaining that distinction as a matter of civil inequality.
Choose a spouse with a vag and you get a marriage? Choose a spouse with a dingle and you get a civil union? I call bullshit.
"It''s not clear to me that settling for civil unions get us there any faster."\
Very good point, r122. Civil unions were never even on the table until marriage equality was brought to the table. ALWAYS come to the bargaining table with your highest demand.\
And the fight for marriage equality has advanced the argument for gay equality in other areas because it''s focused attention on stable gay relationships and gay families and the unfair treatment they receive by law.
R124, aren''t all marriages civil unions? What rights will you be denied with a civil union that you won''t get with marriage?
You''re wrong R125. It''s a distraction and you know it. None of this was even really an issue until that fuckwad Newsom started this mess.
You sound unfamiliar with the actual law. No pastor or church can be forced to perform a wedding ceremony--even an interracial one--that they don't want to. A Jewish couple could not sue to have their wedding performed in St Patricks' Cathedral if the church said no and an interracial couple could not force a preacher in south Georgia to officiate at their wedding if he said no.
And it is not the gays who would oppose civil unions for all.
Try telling your fellow conservatives and/or your local evangelicals that their marriages will now be considered civil unions in the eyes of the government and that this is being done to accommodate the gays.
I promise you; the resistance to such an idea would not come from the gays, my dear.
And it is YOUR side which has chosen to make marriage a battlefield. If the first same sex couple to apply for a marriage license in 1973 had simply been given the license and that policy had been maintained, there would be no battle.
It is a fundamental, individual right to choose your own spouse. Live it, love it, know it. ALL marriage is a farce until that right is recognized and understood.
The right to have my choice of a spouse recognized as equal to someone else''s, r126.\
Turning the question around:\
If civil unions are TRULY equal to marriage, why would we need the separate designation?
Yes. I know a gay man who refers to gay rights as "gay shit". There are a ton of Uncle Toms in the gay community; probably the most of nay oppressed group in history. The percentage of gay men who care about gay rights is very small. The rest just care about fucking "straight" men.
Learn your history, r127. The battle for same sex marriage rights is much older than that.
Conclusion: Gay people who oppose ssm rights are just as stupid and uninformed as straight people who do.
That''s already been covered, R126. Marriage affords a whole host of rights and protections that civil unions don''t.
[quote]I have a friend in his seventies who is adamantly against gay marriage. He''s also a mass-going Catholic and votes Republican. Of course, none of these beliefs has ever held him back from living the gay life to the extreme.%0D\
This is typical and not just found in gay men in their seventies. For gay men, a lot of gay men, maybe most...I don''t know, I hope not, but it looks that way, promiscuous sex is the only thing matters. And, when I hear that people talk about gay men in this light, that they are never stable, in facet of their life...I say that''s not true at all...but maybe there is some truth to those ignorant statements.
R122, anyone can post here, even conservative women.%0D\
However, it might help to do a little research before you post. Churches are not required to perform interracial marriages. If you think they are, then give an example.%0D\
Bob Jones University (which is not a church, nor is it affiliated with any particular religion)rather famously prohibited interracial dating. They ended up dropping the policy after near universal derision. But the University is hardly an exemplar of racial harmony. They lost their tax-exempt status over their discriminatory policies.%0D\
Perhaps the loss of tax-exempt status is what you mean by "civil rights blowback". But if an institution is willing to trade their beliefs for a tax perk, then I guess that says something about their priorities.%0D\
You might be interested in the link below to a Mormon discussion board. LDS is hardly a friend of the gays, but even they say churches would not be forced to marry same sex couples.
I thank those FLAMING, EFFEMINATE, FLAMBOYANT, IN YOUR FACE, GAY 24/7, gay activists for winning gay rights for gay people, R138. %0D\
Once again, [R124] you're confusing the issues.
The article you cite, despite mushing issues, focuses on the FEDERAL discrimination against "civil unions" -- the same discrimination "same-sex marriages" face. MARRIED gay couples face the SAME discrimination -- health benefits are taxed, federal pension issues, etc. -- because of federal law. Being CALLED "married" in those states doesn't make one bit of difference.
Can you not understand that?
Second of all, I am sick and tired of this "separate but equal" analogy. This is a different label, one that is still calls us SPOUSES equal with all the same rights as married couples under state law.
We label OURSELVES by a different label "gay" (not to mention bash people straight people) but this is so "offensive" to our dignity?
The segregation that "non-whites" faced does not remotely compare to this. This is not "sitting at the back of the bus", or drinking from the crappy fountain or the unmaintained restrooms, or being forced to live in bad neighborhoods, or going to the rundown schools, or systematically in every walk of life being turned into a humiliating way of life with ACTUAL segregation. That segregation was not just "separate" it was NEVER "separate but equal" which is WHY people saw it for the cruel farce that it was.
Civil union spouses are truly equal under STATE law and treated equally (badly) as "same-sex marriage" under federal law. There is no difference.
P.S. You do know the Supreme Court never said "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, right?
R140, I urge you to read the CA Supreme Court''s decision In re Marriage Cases (2008). The court eloquently says why having civil unions for gay couples is discrimination -- from one of their holdings, "Offering a legal relationship called "marriage" to opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to "domestic partnerships" impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect."\
And I''m not sure how you can state the the SCOTUS has never said "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. What does Brown v. Board of Education say? What does Loving v. Virginia say? Certainly as far as education and marriage go, the Supreme Court has said clearly that separate is not equal.
140 seems addled.
The focus on gay marriage, screws single gay men and women. But no one cares, as long as you can sashay down the aisle in your Vera Wang caftan with earrings by Harry Winston. \
Gays still get fired. Still can''t openly serve in the armed forces. Still are discriminated against daily. \
But none of that matters, as long as you can be a part of your boyfriend''s benefits package and have your big party.
The Truth Fairy
The Truth Fairy seems addled as well.
It''s not nice for The Truth Fairy to lie.\
Jesus Christ, who are you posters?\
A rising tide lifts all boats. Gay equality is winning the day. All our issues are gaining in popularity. \
We have employment discrimination protection in 21 states. DADT will most likely be history within 2 years. \
It all matters, you big lying ''Truth'' Fairy.
I''m gay and I oppose same sex marriage. Does that count?
Personally I have committment issues and don''t think I''ll ever marry (or even be able to move in with somebody), but a lot of my friends want it for valid reasons so I rather support them than to seclude myself.
145 gets it.\
146 is a maroon.\
[r148] if you''re going to call someone a moron try not to look like one yourself
Some of us are just opposed to marriage. period. for anyone.
No R149 you''re the moron and a self loathing piece of shit.
[r150] you''re not getting it. what in "Some of us are just opposed to marriage. period. for anyone." do you not understand. some people are simply against marriage. there are hetero couples with children who are not married.
take a moment to understand the language
Well let's see who's addled:
[R141] The CA Supreme Court's "eloquence" does little, as a matter of law, to get the right correct. But the U.S. Supreme Court -- admittedly run by fascists, now -- has ALWAYS held that you must show discriminatory injury to show a burden on fundamental rights. The Lovings faced CRIMINAL penalties. Not an "eloquent" injury. Every fundamental rights case -- every single one -- has shown actual harm imposed on people for exercising their rights. Giving full benefits under state law would not qualify. If it were addressing federal law, I'd there's injury.
And here's where you get hilarious. I absolutely LOVE how you ASK what those cases say. Clearly, YOU haven't read them.
Here's the rundown:
BROWN v. BD. OF ED. held that the notion of "separate but equal" did not withstand scrutiny because the schools were NOT in fact equal. The Court held that apart from substandard schools, the NAACP proved, by sociological evidence, that African-American CHILDREN were psychologically harmed. Therefore the court did NOT reach the "separate but equal question."
LOVING V. VIRGINIA did NOT address "separate but equal" AT ALL. Virginia offered up no "equal" scheme for interracial couples. The issue was a CRIMINAL penalty for getting married in another state. The Court held that it was race discrimination (based on the race of the spouse) and vaguely added on it interferes with a freedom to marry based on TRADITION older than the Constitution. Most scholars seriously doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would hold -- as Judge Warner did not -- that the right to choose a spouse of the same gender is a liberty respected by tradition. Scalia and the conservatives say that case was all about "white supremacy" and then somehow doesn't see this is discriminating based on the sex of the spouse.
But "separate but equal"? Actually CLEARLY the Court did NOT address that and has NEVER had a case where it had those facts to rule on -- truly EQUAL but separate schemes.
In fact, in the VMI Case (US v. VIRGINIA) even Justice Ginsberg that "separate but equal" MIGHT be constitutional, for example if Virginia had shown that women's military schools were truly equal, but they weren't.
Have you actually read these cases? My guess is no. But it's clear that you attach a lot of emotion -- and that's ALL -- to being called "married." I'm more concerned about the substantive rights. Being called "married" in California will NOT get any more equality than being called a civil union.
And I will give R141 and R145 credit on these points:\
The marriage movement, however, all-consuming, I do believe is both politically and legally -- if the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case and uses some precedent to affirm the District Court''s opinion in the Perry case, that will be a huge boost over Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas -- even if the court affirms that you have to have a substantive reason other than "morals" to treat someone differently in the public sphere (and of course if they take the case and reverse on the merits, it will be devastating to gay rights in hundreds of ways.)\
Politically, however, the turn has been huge. As in Loving, accepting equality in "marriage" is a huge barrier for equality, and I do think people will see the sky not fall and lose argument after argument that equality hurts them (which is why the "no standing" argument is even that much more brilliant.)\
But to say that the word "marriage" is legally important -- doubtful.
God I''m dropping words today.\
I meant to say in R153 that the marriage movement is IMPORTANT politically and legally.\
And in R152 that if the federal courts recognized a right to marry someone regardless of gender, the federal discrimination would qualify.\
Maybe all these assumptions about the law that clearly no one has read does have me addled.
Um, the Prop 8 trial showed the injury done to clients in consigning their relationships to a second class status, r152.
That was the problem with Plessy that allowed the court to uphold separate but equal in the first place: the Supreme Court justices said that blacks were simply imagining or exaggerating the harm done by separate institutions. Show the injury of sitting in a different railway car. Sitting in the white car was no any different than sitting in the black railway car etc etc.
Civil unions are NOT in fact equal to the status of marriage. If they were, there would be no need for a separate institution. The black car is not identical in status to the white car. If it were there would be no need for the separate car. Separate water fountains are not equal and so on.
The finding of Brown was that separate is INHERENTLY unequal. ie it was not JUST that the black schools were not as nice, underfunded, etc... It was the FACT of making them separate institutions that was INHERENTLY unequal... They could never be equal institutions as long as they were separate.
I'm afraid it's you who needs another look at the cases.
This quote by Hannah Arrendt sums it up perfectly for me. She was describing interracial marriage, which she understood--correctly--as the sine qua non of civil rights. It applies equally to same sex marriage imho:
"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%98the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s skin or color or race%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99 are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."
Um, R152, the Prop 8 trial did not show that. You're focusing on rhetoric -- which is the most suspect part of Judge Walker's opinions, not facts.
And you also clearly have not read Brown v. Board of Education and are taking that language out of context. The Court went on to say they are "inherently unequal" BECAUSE "A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system..."
The Court went on to say "We conclude that, in THE FIELD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place."
The Court has NEVER held that "separate but equal" is always unconstitutional and in fact in VMI -- read the case -- held that it might be in future cases.
As I said in my original post, racial segregation was substantively different.
You may "feel" you're a second class citizen, but in a truly equal scheme where you're called "spouses" just like "married" people and are fighting over ONE WORD? Let's see if Justice Kennedy and the Supreme Court agree. I highly doubt it.
Does that mean that the state has a REASON to treat us differently? No. And THIS is where Judge Walker is correct. They must have a REASON for the separation other than morals -- and THAT is where he's right on the symbolic hate and dislike.
And r140, I'll repeat the Hannah Arrendt quote for you in case you're not the same as r152, but also because it bears repeating:
"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of ones skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if rights were available to me as some sort of multiple choice on a menu, I would GLADLY give up the right to vote and/or eat in restaurants in order to marry my BOYFRIEND of 14 years.
Blacks were fortunate in that even during the worst years of the civil rights movement, they could still marry each other. (ie the number who wanted to marry outside their race was rather small).
They were only dehumanized to the point of having their marriage rights totally removed... during slavery. It really helps dehumanize people, see, if you withhold their right to marry or call their marriages something else or pretend they're not as good.
YOU may consent to having your (non-existent) relationship relegated to a second class status, but I do not. I do not consent. I see myself as equal, and no one can convince I'm not and that these laws are ludicrous, dehumanizing and discriminatory.
Is marriage more important than not being fired for being gay?
[quote]I would GLADLY give up the right to vote and/or eat in restaurants in order to marry my BOYFRIEND of 14 years.\
You can''t be serious. If you love your boyfriend of 14 years that much, how does it change, once you''re married. Yeah, maybe I''m dense, but except for the financial rewards, how does marriage change your love and commitment.
Just because Justice Kennedy and the Papist Nixonian court might disagree with me and agree with you does not make them right or me wrong, r156.\
And read the Prop 8 finding of facts and then look at the supporting evidence for the finding that withholding the word "marriage" from gays and lesbians harms them and their families.\
I think you''re drawing such distinctions and claiming no one is harmed by this second class status because you''re single and bitter. You sound like the Supreme Court in Plessy: what possible harm is there in separate cars if they''re the exact same? \
And you still haven''t answered the million dollar question: if the two things are truly equal, why do we need separate words? Why WITHHOLD the word if it''s just a word?\
The answer is: to accommodate those who believe the two things are unequal and to give their judgment the force of law.\
btw: Civil unions are a second-class status and tend to be most "vexing for poor and minorities."
"Is marriage more important than not being fired for being gay?"\
Is it possible to think both are important, r158? Will your head explode? \
IMHO they are parallel.
And [R157] you JUST proved why your arguments FAIL in comparison to Brown.
Try comparing yourself to an African-American child who is trying to learn and is ACTUALLY emotionally affected, in the Supreme Court's words, in their trying to learn.
You've just written that you consider yourself equal, your commitment to your "boyfriend" is strong and equal to anyone's. And the fact that you probably say you're gay says you DON'T think a label is inherently "separating" you from other people -- or branding you as "unequal" -- reinforces that point.
The fact that you see "civil unions" as second-class is YOUR spin on it. MANY gay and lesbian people consider the word "marriage" OFFENSIVE and have always pushed for something separate. Civil unions give you FULL spousal rights under state law, and being CALLED "married" in Massachusetts subjects those spouses to ALL the same discrimination as civil unions. You still don't get it. But if you choose not to have legal protection for your "boyfriend" of 14 years, you're emotional, not any more rational than the people who discriminate against us on the basis of hateful emotion.
Do I think discrimination in general has a toxic effect on gay people and society in general? YES. Do I think straight people use the word "marriage" to think they're better than "civil unions"? YES.
Do I think that as a matter of LAW -- Supreme Court precedent -- that sexual orientation discrimination will be treated the same as race or gender when it comes to "separate but equal"?
NO. And the conservative Supreme Court and Justice Kennedy are not likely to see "civil unions" as discriminatory as you say and intending to send a "second class" message when in fact they are supported by people trying to give gay people AS MANY RIGHTS as straight couples as possible, short of the word "married" so you can say you have a "husband."
THAT is the issue == the LAW. Not your feelings, or mine.
P.S. Hannah Arendt's general rhetoric does not define legal rights. Never has.
It goes far beyond financial rewards, r159.\
During the civil rights movement, you would have likely found many people who would have said they would gladly die to attain the right for a world with desegregated public facilities. And you would have found just as many people--if not more--who would have said "WTF!? It''s just water. It''s just a seat on a bus."\
Perhaps it''s hard to understand for someone not in a relationship, but it''s about civil equality. It means everything. Again, I can''t speak for other people regarding my menu example. I speak for myself there. I really think the Hannah Arendt quote summarized it perfectly. If you can read that and still not get it, my clumsy explanations will not help.
No one gives a shit what you think R151. Your statement is irrelevant to the discussion to begin with.
[R160] now you're just being mean -- I actually am "married" in my father's home country (Sweden) -- for the rights, not the "word" -- because my partner is also Swedish. And we've been together for 19 years. Of course you choose to take a cheap shot because you're that emotional.
But you act as if you, Hannah, and Justice Kennedy and the Supreme Court are all on the same level defining what's "right and wrong." When it comes to what the law is, Kennedy and the "papists" on the Supreme Court currently DO have more say than YOU.
They have never -- NEVER -- used the same constitutional standards for race to judge discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. NEVER. And they are not likely to do so.
This is why your Plessy analogy is an EPIC FAIL. Under strict scrutiny, there was no reason for it. Under "rational basis review" JUSTICE KENNEDY wrote that it need not be "fair" or "perfectly equal". Justice Kennedy WROTE that. And HE will decide the law.
I told you I personally believed discrimination has a general toxic effect on society. Whether the courts will recognize that as a matter of law is questionable.
Have YOU read Judge Walker's opinion? Please do cite for us the harm the Judge specifically said that have full rights as spouses under a "separate but equal" scheme produce actual harm. His sloppy analysis about "marriage" in general will not hold up on this point.
You keep talking about black people and the civil rights movement. Black people were dehumanized and stripped of basic rights.\
Gays being fired and not allowed to serve honorably in the military, being denied housing, etc is one thing and is comparable to the black civil rights movement.\
The marriage stuff is over the top. I''m against it, for me. For everyone else, more power to you, but I think it needs to take a back seat to more pressing issues like ENDA and DADT. \
That is my main problem. We can have it all, but you have to start somewhere and set attainable goals. ENDA and DADT are attainable goals. Get those things square aware, then marriage will follow.
As to the article you cite, R160, it''s clear that the rationale under federal law is absurd.\
First, as to "civil unions" hurt people in the military. Uh ... being "married" to someone of the same gender will get you DISCHARGED. That''s the federal statute. It does EXACTLY the same thing (outing the partner), and it''s clear this commission doesn''t get that\
As for the impact on people with less money the SAME applies to "same-sex marriages" in Massachusetts. They ALSO have to file two tax returns, etc. under federal law. The word "marriage" under state law would NOT make any difference.\
The one argument that is pointed is that straight people don''t see them as the same -- which is the fault of law enforcement if it has tangible impacts. Whether a federal court sees that as injury under ROMER is highly questionable.
R166, you are making a non-argument.\
NO ONE has said the discrimination YOU cite is not harmful and should be illegal. Whether it still rises to the level of sweeping dehumanizing segregation is arguable.\
It''s the "separate but equal" argument that invites the race comparison.\
And as a matter of law, the federal courts scrutinize race discrimination strictly -- they have for decades. They do not scrutinize anti-gay discrimination the same way and EVEN JUDGE WALKER did not heighten scrutiny of the discrimination in Perry.
"Black people were dehumanized and stripped of basic rights."\
GAY people are being dehumanized and stripped of their civil rights, r166. Marriage IS a civil right and it''s one of the most basic, if not THE most basic... and, as Arrendt correctly points out, it''s one compared to which the others can look very minor indeed.\
"Black people had it worse" is, in the end, not a sufficient reason for CURRENTLY depriving people of their basic fundamental rights... or because it makes a bare majority uncomfortable and we must satisfy the fleeting prejudices of a majority and place their unsubstantiated concerns over the fundamental rights of an unpopular minority.\
This letter written by Mildred Loving in 2007 on the 40th anniversary of Loving v Virginia summarizes it nicely, and talks specifically and pointedly about same sex marriage rights and how dehumanizing it is to have your right to marry withheld.
well [r164] if you insist on being ignorant, go for it. The relevancy is this--if you fight for the right to be married on mainstream heterosexual terms, as in "Ozzie, Harriet, the Cleavers, Donna Reed et al." -- we lose, because we are not that. Better to be against it. Period. We are fighting for financial equality for our households, the right to be considered as such and the separation of Church & State. That is the true battleground. Marriage only works fifty percent of the time for those who have the right to marry. %0D\
Not to mention that gay couples have been getting "married" for centuries -- just not recognized as such except by friends and family.%0D\
Not good for us to accept "their" terms.%0D\
We need to fight against Churches and Religious extremists who would rather see us disappear. Some people think marriage is the way for us to stay visible. I am not so sure.
We Are What We Are
"EVEN JUDGE WALKER did not heighten scrutiny of the discrimination in Perry."\
Yes, he did. Have you read the decision?\
He said it merits heightened scrutiny on several grounds:\
1. Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and therefore merits heightened scrutiny.\
2. Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sex.\
3. Prop 8 abridges a fundamental right.\
You may need to pick up the decision again.
you still haven''t answered the million dollar question: if the two things are truly equal, why do we need separate words? Why WITHHOLD the word if it''s just a word?
It is a fight for the fundamental, individual right to marry and to have that relationships considered equal under the law, not to be handed a crumb of a specially designated "civil union" (What's next? Jew marriage? White-negro union?)
Why don't we call interracial marriages "Civil unions" too? They ARE after all different from same race marriages? Inter-faith marriages? Why don't we call a woman's vote a "civil election input unit"? It is after all different from a man's vote. A woman is not a man, right? Different words for different things, right? And if the two counted the exact same and were perfectly equal, why would anyone object?
Answer: the differences do not merit separate classification BY THE STATE and would only serve to enforce the idea that there was something inherently unequal that merited intervention of the the law to maintain distinction via separate status. Women decidedly do NOT vote with a "civil election input."
Straight people are free to think that they are better and that their unions are better and that the people they've chosen to marry are better and that makes them superior. They are NOT free to put their thumb on the scale of justice and give this private, moral judgment the force of law.
At the very least, even if we don't agree, I hope you can at least see that you have nothing to lose by me fighting for my equality in this realm, and that you can conceptualize why it's important to me.
I, however, can't understand why the converse is important to you and why you're opposing this with such vigor.
R170 stop talking out of your ass dear it''s unbecoming. If you don''t get why gays and lesbians need to have the same legal rights that married couples do then you are a lost cause.
And oddly enough, r170, before the Prop 8 vote, my argument was much like yours. I thought CA gays were silly for pushing for marriage (Why, I thought, they HAVE DPs?! They''ll only create a backlash)\
It''s in the wake of Prop 8 that I sat down and really started to do some thinking and reading about this issue. \
Read George Chauncey''s book about same sex marriage and gay rights. It will really get you thinking about this issue and why it''s important--central even--to the question of gay equality imho. He''s a Yale history professor and no lightweight.
"All of the arguments that I''ve heard as to why we need gay marriage can be taken care of with attorneys and contracts."\
Then you haven''t really been listening.
[quote]The marriage stuff is over the top. I'm against it, for me. For everyone else, more power to you, but I think it needs to take a back seat to more pressing issues like ENDA and DADT.%0D
I use to think that way, but I have come to see how legalizing SSM will benefit all the other struggles.%0D
ENDA, DADT and other non-discrimination laws are subject to the moronic "special rights" arguments. "Gays want a law to prevent them from being fired, where is the law to keep me from being fired". %0D
They are also subject to the Rand Paul philosophy that they infringe on private corporations' right to conduct business as they please.%0D
Marriage on the other hand is not a "special right" unavailable to others. Legalizing SSM says that gays should have the same rights as straights. Opponents of SSM rightly see that if it is deterimed that gays have rights equal to straight people in the case of marriage, what will be the basis for allowing other discriminatory acts. If gays are considered equal for a fundamental right like marriage, how will we say it is ok to fire them from their jobs.%0D
SSM will not end the fight for equal rights but it will form such a strong foundation that other rights will follow quickly. %0D
The fight for SSM has already pushed some people into saying that opposing SSM doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gays. They are now saying that gays should have workplace non-discrimination protections, but marriage should be saved for its "tradtional values".
Well said, r177...\
And the converse of what you said is also true: if it''s determined that gay relationships are so different (read: inferior) that they merit a special, different legal status... what''s to say that gay employment, gay military service, etc ALSO don''t merit different sorts of status.\
If gay relationships are so different that they must be marked & maintained as different by law, then surely HIRING & employing a gay person is different and can be seen as something different and subject to different sorts of treatment and considerations (ie Surely, you can keep gays from teaching in kindergarten, and so on.) \
If a gay relationship is not equal and somehow inferior by law, why should anyone need to treat such a person equally in the work place?\
(And the unequal treatment due to marital status in providing healthcare and benefits for partners is a huge obstacle in workplace discrimination btw. Gay people currently do equal work for unequal pay and benefits. Unfair.)
WTF is so hard about EQUALITY?!
R175 I had a similar evolution in thinking. While I still think DADT is a more pressing issue than same-sex marriage, long-term the marriage rights are key. I think it''s more about how it will impact the social acceptance of same-sex relationships in general. %0D\
From a bi perspective, I think it could cause a lot of closeted bi people to seriously consider living a life that is more open and more closely reflects their nature, rather than just going the straight route because it''s easier.
Holy Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, Batman! I had no idea there were so many bored members of the bar lurking on the Datalounge!%0D\
OTOH, this is a great discussion, gentlemen -- carry on!
lesbian who''s enjoying the mostly literate discourse
How to Get a Copy of a Probated Will%0D\
see link below
How Can I Get a Copy of a Will?%0D\
At the Register of Wills office in the county in which the will was probated%0D\
see link below
how come all these threads are getting spammed?
[R128] R122 responding again.
I am not talking about a two-tiered system; marriage for straights and civil unions for gays, but civil unions performed by government officials for everyone and marriages performed by churches according to their own religious beliefs for everyone.
Something like this was done in Germany. The couple was first married civilly by their version of the J.P. Then, if the couple was particularly religious, they were married in the church of their choice.
There was blowback when a justice of the peace refused to marry an interracial couple just last year.
And yes, the poster a couple of posts down did hit the nail on the head, a church could lose its income tax exemption status if they offended a member of a protected group. Then it would be a matter of how far back the IRS decided to go to collect "delinquent" taxes.
Johnson put that ruling through to muzzle churches from opposing his legislation. The churches should have snapped to it and simply paid their taxes, because it pretty much rendered preachers as "men without chests."
So, I could see where same sex marriage being officially recognized by the government would put a fundamentalist Christian church WHEN NOT IF a homosexual pair demands that the pastor marry them.
It's not like gay activists have not stormed churches before and entertained the parishioners with their antics before ... oh wait, there's the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence doing just that in a Catholic Church in San Francisco. Waiting patiently for them to show up a mosque, because damn ... I look great in blue! But I digress.
The first amendment establishes a separation of church and state prohibiting Congress from making any law establishing a state religion or interfering with religious sacraments, because the USA is supposed to be a secular nation not a theocracy.
To me, marriage is a religious ceremony or sacrament that was state-sanctioned, because most countries were part of Christendom's theocracy. This may have become an issue only when "the love that dared not say its name (but now won't shut up)" became in vogue, but it would have faced a challenge once enough Muslims who want to practice polygamy immigrated to the USA.
In any case, the idea of state-sanctioned marriage is an antiquated notion. The government doesn't get involved in religious practices like circumcision, baptism, first communions, bar mitzvahs or confirmations. It needs to butt the hell out of marriages.
And yes, I have had this debate with conservative Christian fundamentalists who cannot see that when you invite the government in to meddle in the private affairs of someone else, you not only invite the proverbial vampire in, but you unlock a door that swings both ways.
I'm a baby boomer and to say this country has changed a lot since I was a baby. Hell, if you described America today to a twenty-year old me, I would swear that you had been dropping acid; that's how different the norms and values are today. That is why I see state-sanctioned marriages being replaced by civil unions for everyone as a way of preserving my freedom as well as yours.
I have no interest in the government defining marriage as strictly a heterosexual union, because it sets a precedent of the courts deciding these things and opens the door to future definitions of marriage being strictly defined as a homosexual union.
In any case, I close by saying thank you for providing this open forum and debating me in a polite, non-abusive manner. I appreciate how gracious you all are.
R181 I''m surprised you weren''t entralled by the intelligent discourse in the thread:%0D\
"I DEMAND the IMMEDIATE presentation of hairy bubble butts"
r185, you're wrong on every count.
"civil unions performed by government officials for everyone and marriages performed by churches according to their own religious beliefs for everyone. "
I'm fine with such a system. You have my support and backing. Again, as I said in my first post, it is not the GAYS you will need to convince here. Please go down to your local evangelical church and/or conservative Republican chapter and let them know your plan to make all of their marriages become "civil unions" in the eyes of the government and that this is going to be done to accommodate the gays. Get back to us with their reaction.
IMHO, you'd have just as hard a time convincing them of this as you would to convince them to support ssm rights...Perhaps harder... because unlike ssm rights, such a move would ACTUALLY AFFECT THEM!!
"a church could lose its income tax exemption status if they offended a member of a protected group."
No, they could not. This is just a paranoid reactionary line that someone sold you and you're such a tool you bought it. Churches and how they worship and what pastors say and who they marry are all strongly protected by the first amendment. It's ludicrous to withdraw or withhold someone's civil equality because of some imagined terrible consequence you think might could maybe happen. This is precisely how they convinced poor, uneducated white people in the south that desegregation and interracial marriage would destroy society: drawing the terrible imaginary consequences which played on preexisting fears. "The blacks will rape your daughters!!" etc
"There was blowback when a justice of the peace refused to marry an interracial couple just last year."
A justice of the peace is a government employee which is why there was blowback. These details are crucial. It'd be as if someone went to get a driver's license and the person said "Nope. I don't give licenses to Jews." It is not THEIR decision to make. If he were a preacher, he would be free to refuse. As a gov employee, he is not.
"It's not like gay activists have not stormed churches before and entertained the parishioners with their antics before "
Protesting a church or dressing up like a nun are quite different from being able to sue in court for something a church has said or done. The church's speech and freedom of relig are strongly protected by the First Amendment.
"To me, marriage is a religious ceremony or sacrament that was state-sanctioned"
That's fine. Do you realize not everyone shares your same ideas about an imaginary, invisible sky-friend who hates the gay? And people are free in this country to HAVE different religious ideas. Some people's invisible sky-friend LOVES the gay and wants the gay to marry. And some people--wait for it--don't believe in an invisible sky-friend and want to marry for non-religious reasons, like thousands of non-religious heterosexual couples do every day.
"The first amendment establishes a separation of church and state prohibiting Congress from making any law establishing a state religion"
Indeed. Which is one more reason why the laws which express a preference for heterosexual marriages are such utter bullshit. It's religious discrimination, to say that THIS religion's marriages will be recognized, but not THAT one's. Many churches DO marry gay people. Why are their ceremonies not being honored as equal? What if I'm a pagan or a Wiccan and my gods love gay people? Is that not protected by the 1st? Why is the gov ESTABLISHING your beliefs and enforcing them in the civil law?
And how does it infringe on YOUR belief or YOUR church if such ceremonies as mine are honored by the government as equal?
"future definitions of marriage being strictly defined as a homosexual union. "
Nothing to say to this but wtf?! I'm sure at the time of interracial marriages, some crazy somewhere who objected said, "The guberment's a-gonna make us ALL marry a Negro!!"
"thank you for providing this open forum and debating me in a polite, non-abusive manner. "
Likewise. Thank you, but you're wrong on every count
In closing, r185, marriage is a fundamental, individual right with liberty of choice in marital partner the defining element of that right. If the government wishes to limit its citizens' liberty of choice on the basis of gender--as it once did on the basis of race--it must come up with some pretty strong, secular, legal justifications for limiting people's freedom in that way.
This the government has not been able to do, try as it might, which is why this issue has had such staying power, in spite of its initial unpopularity. SSM bans are dangling by a thread, and that thread is now woven of nothing more than a (primarily older) bare majority's prejudice and unsubstantiated fears about gay people and gay relationships.
Perhaps you can keep that dangling thread intact and in place, keeping a disfavored minority from civil equality, for as much as another 50 years or so if you and others like you devote your lives and energies to that cause. But either way, ssm rights are inevitable. You have nothing but the prejudices of an old majority. You are not winning over the young. We are.
You have nothing but your bare majorities, and even those are not permanent or overwhelming.
I don''t care what it''s called. The religious ceremony part is up to the couple. All I want are the 1,100 federal benefits those of the opposite sex take for granted. No need to bother unless it''s federally recognized.%0D\
[r174] on the contrary I do understand very well what the struggle is all about -- it needs to be redefined -- and it will not become a universal law anytime soon
Get Used To It
Contrarian for contrary sake.
no, contrarian because it''s what I believe
It''s allowed in this country, you know
Did your parents divorce, r193?
I eat my own feces and no one wants to marry me that''s why!
Married until death did them part ... many others in the family stayed married all their lives, not necessarily happy nor faithful. My parents were steadfast.
r193 You said:\
"Some of us are just opposed to marriage. period. for anyone."\
That''s fine. But quite a sep. issue from the one at-hand.\
Whether you are "for" marriage for anyone or not, it exists in this country, and is an important cultural and legal symbol of 2 peoples'' relationship.\
You ARE being a contrarian for contrary''s sake, not to make any kind of meaningful contribution to progressing gay americans'' rights.
Many people consider gay relationships as "less than" straight ones. Having this judgment enforced by and reflected in the laws IS exactly how we're pinned down.
Establishing the legal equality of our relationships is key to our achieving legal equality in other areas imho. Everyone--even those not interested in marrying--stands to benefit from marriage equality.
You've decided not to marry and you've decided that marriage is not for you, r193... That's fine. our argument was never that everyone has to marry or that marriage is for everyone... A pro-marriage equality argument does not even necessarily depend on the belief that marriage is, in and of itself, a good thing. (The belief is that EQUALITY is a good thing. If straight people have the right to protect their relationships in legal marriage, so should we).
But do you hope to convince EVERY gay person not to marry? Or hope to convince all gay people that arguing for the legal equality of gay relationships is the wrong track?
I'm certainly not convinced.
not at all [r197] -- marriage is not the be all and end all in the gay rights discussion. we should have all the rights that everyone has--focusing on marriage turns into a discussion focusing only on that aspect. We are not heterosexuals. We are equal to them. Not to mention that marriage even in many heterosiexuals'' attitudes is not all that important. You are asking many people to argue on a religious playing field when we are not religious. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Stop focusing on that aspect and you can have a discussion. There is not one, not one major religion -- except Anglicanism/Episcopalianism perhaps -- accepting of homosexuality. The STATE has to be above that and as a first step acknowledge--universally-CIVIL unions for everyone. Tax breaks for *all households* --If you want to play house go ahead.
Marriage is NOT a religious sacrament!!
"focusing on marriage turns into a discussion focusing only on that aspect"
According to whom, r200? This is a strawman argument. Most of the people I know who care about marriage equality ALSO care about ENDA and DADT and a host of other issues relating (and not relating) to gay equality. Their heads don't explode.
One could just as easily say that focusing on employment non-discrimination focuses too much on jobs... as if all we are are worker-bees for the corporations and our equal employment and earning money is all that matters.
One could just as easily say that focusing on DADT implies all we are is potentially unquestioning patriotic cannon fodder.
And so on.
They are PARALLEL arguments for legal, civil equality. They do not exclude or diminish each other.
"marriage even in many heterosexuals' attitudes is not all that important."
Marriage does not have to be important to heterosexuals because for them it is a personal liberty and a privilege which is taken for granted. Access to water fountains, public restrooms, lunch counters, and bus seats were not terribly important or pressing issues to whites in the south in the 1930s either, I imagine. They did not have to think much about these things. "What's the big deal," said the whitie c 1950. "The tuna club at Woolworth's isn't THAT good. Yeesh. Why all the fuss."
Marriage is not JUST a religious sacrament, though it can be one. And even that's a fail.
What if my personal religious belief is that God wants me to marry someone of the same sex? We no longer have freedom of religion? One religious belief has been ESTABLISHED as superior to mine and my church's??! Why? The 1st amendment prohibits the establishment of any religious belief.
i bow down to 201 with great appreciation and respect.
I understand all of that and would never stand in your way. However, what you/we/everybody need to do is take it out of a religious context altogether, that''s what gums it up. It is a discussion that panders to so-called religiosity. The idea is that NOBODY gets married -- EVERYBODY gets civil unions. As long as it stays even remotely a religious/morality discussion -- we lose. That''s the point.
"The 1st amendment prohibits the establishment of any religious belief." %0D\
Indeed it does. But where did I hear that we are a "Christian Nation"? Now somebody said that somewhere.%0D\
Let''s see now? How long did it take for us to elect even a Catholic president? Oh yes, who was the first Jewish president? How many people are trying to take Obama down because he might be [gasp] Muslim. Wake up and smell the Dunkin'' Donuts ...
Mormons Drove Prop 8
I disagree, r203.
I think if we concede that gay people are incapable of being religious or moral; or incapable of forming a religious or moral argument; or incapable of living a religious or moral life, we lose.
There are religious and moral arguments FOR same sex marriage rights. I am not religious, but I can also see that we do NOT concede that realm as being incompatible with marriage equality or incompatible with gayness. Ever.
"God hates the gay," is certainly one popular idea of many religions, but it is not the idea of EVERY religion, and people have the freedom to believe as they choose in this country, with no religious belief or private, moral judgment--no matter how popular--being given preference in law.
Most of the everyday people using religion to back up their objection to ssm know little about religion BEYOND the fact that it's a convenient tool that can be used to back up their prejudicial objections to ssm.
Morally, ethically, legally, constitutionally, we've WON this argument already. Past tense. We're just fighting the bigots to implement our victory imho.
If the other side had any valid argument at all--anything--this would have never even become an issue.
They have nothing but the prejudice of a bare (and aging) majority, and even that majority is not permanent or overwhelming. They are not convincing the young people: We are.
if you keep the discussion in the realm of religion -- you feed the beast, the ugly beast.
Someone discussing the issue in the realm of religion does not preclude your discussing it in other realms, r206.\
God is imaginary, and religious people are retarded, but this does not mean that religious arguments in favor of same sex marriage rights are unimportant or ineffective. Such arguments certainly do no HARM, and I fail to see what sort of ugly beast they''re feeding.\
The concession that we do not want to make imho is that being religious is somehow INHERENTLY anti-gay or INHERENTLY incompatible with equal rights.
Gay marriage rights is one of the few issues that all gay groups agree on, along with the repeal of "Don''t Ask, Don''t Tell."%0D\
I''m from Dallas, where most of the A-list gays are Republican. They want the economic rights that go along with a federally-recognized union.
Good points 207.
"The concession that we do not want to make imho is that being religious is somehow INHERENTLY anti-gay or INHERENTLY incompatible with equal rights."%0D
That is accurate in a rational way of thinking.%0D
Most religious people in the US: Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, just to name a few believe that homosexuality is a sin. (It needs to be said, most good people are not hateful and are tolerant--however ...)%0D
When their prelates come down the pike waving a religious banner and their politicians stand along side the religious hierarchy ... we are down for the count for "marriage" equality. Very difficult for our non-gay supporters to stand up for us in that kind of atmosphere. Do not doubt that this is the most religious country in the world.%0D
You may need to emulate Jimmy Carter who focuses on simply the words of Jesus--in the Four Gospels--of which there are absolutely none about homosexuality. That does leave out scores of people who focus on the rest of Scripture, plus the Koran and other religious writings.
Interesting points, r210...\
And it''s important to remember that arguments for slavery, for segregation, for the subjugation of women, and for bans on interracial marriage were also all religious arguments and were also supported--sometimes even more strongly than the anti-gay stuff--by scriptural justification. People tend to use religion to back up their pre-existing fears and prejudices about social change.\
God is imaginary... and one can just as easily imagine him loving gays, supporting equality for women and blacks, as others can imagine him hating gays and so on. Freedom of religion.
"a sacred institution" from the Charlie Crist thread -- here''s the original link showing how Crist is dancing around the issue but still waving the "sacred" banner
He''s scum, as are any other gay men or women who are actually AGAINST same-sex marriage.
-anyone else? Wonder if Nate Silver feels this way?
-So how do these gay men feel about it this AM?
I've been to one discussion site where an elder gay revealed himself very bitter and twisted in his political viewpoints.
Then he projected that onto others and accused them of being misguided, wanting to be like straight people, and telling others that they need to grow up.
He has been mocked and dismissed by other posters.
Someone who is like that should be left alone and ignored.