Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Why Is Gay Marriage Important?

Shouldn't gay people try to form their own identities and traditions?

by Anonymousreply 14903/31/2013

People generally do. And clearly there are many people who choose to make being married part of their personal identity.

So piss off.

by Anonymousreply 103/25/2013

Because marriage is a legal union between two people and it comes with a list of rights that are available only to married couples. Denying a couple willing to make that legal commitment is denying them equal rights. OK?

You should go on line OP and have a look at Federal marriage benefits.

by Anonymousreply 203/25/2013

I don't understand how people can be as cluelessly stupid as the OP. Seriously.

What part of "equal rights for all people" do you not get?

I don't want to get married. That doesn't mean I don't support legal same sex marriages. EVERYONE should have the same options and opportunities. The government shoudln't be making life decisions like that for anyone.

by Anonymousreply 503/25/2013

It's not about gay marriage. It's about marriage EQUALITY!!!!!!!

Gays deserve equal rights. A wedding ceremony in a Church is NOT part of this.

by Anonymousreply 603/25/2013

I only support it because I know it pisses off the right wing, stuck in the past Jebus freaks.

by Anonymousreply 703/25/2013

I'm with you OP. I think if we re-vamped the tax code/inheritance laws/benefits there would be no need for marriage. A domestic partnership or civil union would accomplish the same thing if those three things were fixed. There is nothing that prevents contracts between any two adults so you can declare who makes your health decisions, etc now. Personally, I would not get married: (1) We have been together over 10 years and the piece of paper means nothing to me and (2) marriage is too often associated with some form of religion and as an atheist anything involving gods turns my stomach.

With that said, if people want to fight for marriage that's their right. I would prefer re-vamping tax codes, passing of benefits, etc.

by Anonymousreply 903/25/2013

Yes, equal rights are, in fact, the SAME rights. By definition, rights are the "SAME" for everyone.

by Anonymousreply 1003/25/2013

Explain R11.

by Anonymousreply 1203/25/2013

R13 - all my life. And before you go there, yes I graduated from one of the best universities in the country. Just because I do not agree with marriage does not mean I am attacking gay rights, I would prefer to go about it differently. Marriage is not an institution (again because of the religious connotations) that I have any respect for.

If marriage snaps your bean - have at it. If I do not want to get married, I should also be able to get the same advantages if I am in a long term, non religion based, relationship.

by Anonymousreply 1403/25/2013

Too many people have listened to the "traditional marriage" bullcrap issued by religions.

Before religion got involved with their love until death do you part, marriage between two people was meant to unite 2 families, 2 business ventures, 2 villages, 2 kingdoms, etc. Love and religion wasn't the major part of the contract. That was the traditional marriage back in history that religion keeps hidden from the ignorant masses - even those who claim they graduated from one of the best universities in the country.

by Anonymousreply 1703/25/2013

OP is arguing like a petulant child. Just saying things like "No, you're wrong" without explaining why.

Pay it no further attention. It's trolling.

by Anonymousreply 2103/25/2013

R20 - fuck right off with R16. You want your way, I want mine. One is more realistic than the other. Again - you seem like the brave behind a keyboard but cry to therapist over real confrontation type of girl. Sad fucking lot.

by Anonymousreply 2303/25/2013

Why you are wrong, is more like it.

by Anonymousreply 2503/25/2013

[quote]By definition, marriage is between a man and woman.

NO! That is simply a church-created definition that should not apply to laws of this nation.

by Anonymousreply 3103/25/2013

[quote] I think if we re-vamped the tax code/inheritance laws/benefits there would be no need for marriage.

How long do you think it would take for every state legislature to debate each one of the 1,000+ rights and privileges that marriage confers upon a couple, and write laws that make them apply to civil unions? How long do you think it would take for state legislatures to reconcile all the differences between these new laws, so Bill & Jerry can enjoy the same rights in Montana that they do in Massachusetts?

Opening up civil marriage to gay couples takes care of it all in one fell swoop.

by Anonymousreply 3203/25/2013

[quote] I think if we re-vamped the tax code/inheritance laws/benefits there would be no need for marriage.

Changing the laws might take care of a few of the government issues (and to that list I would add immigration, among other things), but it will not take care of things like private hospitals refusing visition to people who are not legal relatives or allowing a spouse to make medical decisions. It will not force private employers to recognise your marriage contract for the sake of such things as family health insurance, or allowing family to take care of a sick spouse and take bereavement time in the case of death of a spouse.

How about when you travel abroad? If a person is your spouse s/he is your spouse and will be recognised as such in many countries, where a domestic partnership has no validity outside of the US.

There are so many benefits that can't just be fixed by amending certain laws. And, we should be able to commit ourselves to a person we love just as any other het can do.

by Anonymousreply 3403/25/2013

[quote]Same-sex marriage is not going to be a holy grail.

I think marriage-equality will open many doors that have been shut to gays.

I also believe that the repeal of DADT is a factor in pushing the Supremes toward marriage equality. We've got branches of the government that now recognize gays and gay marriage. Gay military spouses are now part of the hetero military spouse community. How would it look for the Supremes to tell soldiers on the front lines of freedom that they're not equal?

The members of the Supreme Court want to be viewed as being on the right side of history.

by Anonymousreply 3803/25/2013

[quote]Gay men, as a crude example, can't biologically have children, so they can't be afforded that same right.

Uh, having children is not a right. No country 'grants' the right to have children. Otherwise we would see infertile hetero couples marching in the streets demanding that the government provide free fertility treatments since having children is their 'right'.

And many many gay men do have biological children. Through earlier marriages and through surrogacy.

by Anonymousreply 4003/25/2013

For those arguing that marriage is a religious ceremony:

If you get married in a church WITHOUT a state-issued marriage license, you are NOT married under the law. If you get married WITH a state-issued marriage license by a justice of the peace, you ARE married under the law.

In other words, without the state-issued license, which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, you’re not legally married.

by Anonymousreply 4103/25/2013

[quote]Same-sex marriage is not going to be a holy grail.

Who is claiming it will be?

Equal treatment under the law is an important goal. Nothing more.

It will really help a lot of individuals and couples (people who are in relationships with non-citizens, couples with children). This is vital for those people.

It's about basic fairness.

Opinions and attitudes will change over time, but in the meantime, it's good to have the law not arrayed against you.

by Anonymousreply 4203/25/2013

[quote]Agree. Acting like bratty 5 year olds that want something they can't have and backing it up with tantrums is not the way to push forward.

Who, pray-tell, is acting that way? Gay couples who want marriage are NOT acting like bratty 5 year olds, and they're NOT wanting something they can't have, and they're NOT throwing tantrums.

The tantrums are being thrown by those opposing equality.

[quote]Given what I have seen from other gay couples, I can only assume a higher divorce rate. I have been with my partner for 16 years (we are 40) and know one other couple that has been together anywhere close to us.

So far, where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the rates of same-sex divorce are no greater than among straights (and in many cases is lower).

And don't generalize from personal experience: that's a major and common logical fallacy. I am terminally single (and will remain that way until I die) but even I know a dozen gay couples that have been together that long or longer.

[quote]Again, based on my experience, what we have works.

What you have works FOR YOU. It doesn't work for a couple where one member is a citizen of the UK, for example (I know two such couples). It doesn't really work where couples have children (either their own, adopted, or from a previous heterosexual relationship). Again, you generalize from your personal experience as if that's the only thing that matters. You are not everyone. Your experience is not universal. Your needs are not everyone's needs. Stop being so self-absorbed.

[quote]A good number of companies now offer domestic partner benefits in the United States. My company does that and even pays the tax differential on the benefits for us. They also hold many of my accounts in both names for stock/401k/etc.

Again, what about people who DON'T work for your company? And you still get screwed on federal taxes, inheritance, immigration, and a thousand other rights and privileges that "come with" civil marriage licenses. What if you move out of state? Out of country? What if you travel, and get in trouble somewhere? Who else is going to recognize your "Domestic Partnership" when you need them to the most?

You're not thinking clearly. You're being very myopic.

by Anonymousreply 4303/25/2013

"Gay men, as a crude example, can't biologically have children, so they can't be afforded that same right."

R15, since when is procreation a pre-requisite for a civil marriage license?

Are you saying a man and a post-menopausal woman should also NOT be allowed the same rights? They can't have children either.

by Anonymousreply 4403/25/2013

R43 - you seem to see the world through your own lens as well.

BTW - Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough to see the divorce rate stats mean anything. First marriages tend to last 8 years.

I have been extremely forthcoming with my opinions were based on my experience and how we have chosen to live our life. You are doing the same time. There are differences of opinions and life choices out there sweetie. As I said, repeatedly, I would not stand in your path to marriage.

Again - if you move out of country. Your US marriage as same-sex will mean absolutely nothing in most countries. We could have gotten married in Europe before we were moved to Asia but it would have meant nothing in Asia or US for that matter.

You are expecting more out of "marriage" than it can deliver.

by Anonymousreply 4503/25/2013

R47, it wasn't an example of anything. It was illogical and completely stupid. It was irrelevant.

by Anonymousreply 4803/25/2013

You know what. Have at it. I understand, and believe, some of your points but believe the entire package is flawed. You seem to understand none of mine. Again - enjoy your marriage. You are so welcome to it.

Critiquing others for being simple minded does not make you worldly.

by Anonymousreply 4903/25/2013

r36, I hope for your sake that if you own a home, the deed is in both your names and is written as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. If it’s not, and one of you dies, the other is in for quite a disappointment if any of the relatives of the dead one want his share.

Wills are so easy to contest. Get a homophobic judge and it’s all over.

by Anonymousreply 5003/25/2013

R50 - of course. Any person, straight or gay, that shares property with someone has sorted that out. (You do know some straight people are in relationships and never decide to get married, right?)

by Anonymousreply 5103/25/2013

I was skeptical of the fight for marriage, but I think it has sent a message that gay people are not that different from everyone else. We want the same things. We are not any more decadent, promiscuous and sex-obsessed than straight people. That being gay is about love not just sex.

This accelerated the progress that the coming out process is making. Who among us would have predicted that we would ever see 81% support among people under 30?

I know this is a disappointment to radical queers who want all gay people to share a separatist identity. Of course all of us never did and never would share such an identity. They are free to live as they want, but they have lost the illusion that they speak for most gay people.

by Anonymousreply 5203/25/2013

[quote]Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough to see the divorce rate stats mean anything.

Gay marriage has been around for centuries. At one time gay marriage was approved by the church, along with trial marriage and married priests and nuns. Just because you're unaware of actual traditional marriage, don't expect others to buy into the lies put forth by 21st century religions.

by Anonymousreply 5303/25/2013

Good points R52. I firmly believe people, as a whole, will make the right decision. I would rather have a change brought about by society making a demand than having something driven top down by the government. Societal change, while taking longer, is so much more meaningful. AGAIN BEFORE YOU ALL ATTACK - THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND BY NO MEANS DO I THINK YOUR ARE STUPID/IDIOTS/UNEDUCATED/NARROWMINDED/ETC for feeling otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 5503/25/2013

R53 - forgive me for thinking about modern times, when divorce was actually an option.

by Anonymousreply 5603/25/2013

[quote]I would rather have a change brought about by society making a demand than having something driven top down by the government.

Nice thoughts, but if this were the way things worked in the U.S., we would still have segregation. The Civil Rights Act came from the government, not from opinions of the majority of the people.

by Anonymousreply 5703/25/2013

Let's put aside the nuts and bolts of legal status, benefits, property, inheritance, etc.

That's not what people are fighting over. Many opponents of gay marriage are perfectly willing to endow gay unions with all the rights of marriage, but not the word. Why? Because they want the law to signal that our families are less than straight families. Our love is inferior. Our commitments not as meaningful.

That's ALL this is about. Whether society says gays are fully equal or that gays are inferior.

Which side are you on?

This is also about the strengthening of the separation of church and state. The arguments against gay marriage are essentially religious. When our country declares that one person's religious beliefs don't restrict another person's rights, we are all better off.

Which side are you on?

Two incredibly important results of the acceptance of gay marriage. Anyone who wants to quibble about the word "marriage" is missing the real significance of the issue. I assure you, our enemies (almost exclusively religious) do not miss the point.

by Anonymousreply 5803/25/2013

I am 3000% behind separation of church and state. I have no problem with the religious zealots claiming marriage if we can have civil unions that convey the same rights. In fact, I would prefer it. Gays can be equal in the eyes of the law if we focus on the law and pursue equal right in some other unions besides marriage because, no matter what anyone here says, marriage implies god.

by Anonymousreply 5903/25/2013

[quote] Gays can be equal in the eyes of the law if we focus on the law and pursue equal right in some other unions besides marriage

You are totally missing the point. Witholding the word "marriage" means the law DOES NOT consider us equal. Period.

[quote] no matter what anyone here says, marriage implies god.

Ridiculous. Sad that you are so closed to education. You remind me of an old friend who insisted, "no matter what anyone here says," that rice is a vegetable. Simply would not budge. The strength of your conviction cannot change the facts.

by Anonymousreply 6003/25/2013

[quote]I am 3000% behind separation of church and state. I have no problem with the religious zealots claiming marriage if we can have civil unions that convey the same rights. In fact, I would prefer it.

Marriage is a LEGAL term, recognized by the state, so if you want the religious zealots to be able to 'claim marriage' then there is no way you can say that you are "3000% behind separation of church and state"

It's really not that hard to grasp and I despair for the poor soul who wasted their money sending you to 'the best universities in the country'

by Anonymousreply 6103/25/2013

R61 - so are civil unions and domestic partnerships. Put them on the same playing ground and the problem is solved without bothering the religious right.

BTW - I funded my own education. I turned down $ from my parents because they had a problem with me being gay. I took out loans and worked full time to graduate on time. It has paid me back 100X over so far.

Thank you.

How has your parents' investment in your community college worked out?

by Anonymousreply 6303/25/2013

[quote] ask 90% of married couples where they had their wedding. IN A FUCKING CHURCH

Wrong. There are only 18 states that keep track of this and their numbers show 40% of all marriages are civil ceremonies with a Justice of the Peace.

You seem to be getting rather upset. Maybe this website isn't a good place for you.

by Anonymousreply 6403/25/2013

What about the other 10%?

And the 90% had to get marriage licenses from the state and file certificates with the state.

Marriage is a legal arrangement for anyone. It is ALSO religious for those who CHOOSE to see it that way.

[quote]Who can perform a marriage or civil union ceremony? (NJ) Each judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, each judge of a federal district court, United States magistrate, judge of a municipal court, judge of the Superior Court, judge of a tax court, retired judge of the Superior Court or Tax Court, or judge of the Superior Court or Tax Court, the former County Court, the former County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, or the former County District Court who has resigned in good standing, surrogate of any county, county clerk and any mayor or the deputy mayor when authorized by the mayor, or chairman of any township committee or village president of this State, and every minister of every religion, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages or civil unions between such persons as may lawfully enter into the matrimonial relation or civil union; [bold]and every religious society, institution or organization in this State may join together in marriage or civil union such persons according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 6503/25/2013

[quote]Put them on the same playing ground and the problem is solved without bothering the religious right.

What about those churches (and their are a few) that DO marry gay couples? Should they be legally forced to not call it marriage? What you are implying is that the religious right gets to run around calling themselves married and the rest of us have to settle for 'domestic partnership'

[quote]How has your parents' investment in your community college worked out?

I dropped out in 10th grade and change bedpans whose contents make a better argument than you.

by Anonymousreply 6703/25/2013

Marriage is a civil contract and should not be a church function. Marriage is a legal contract binding two people. It's like a contract between two business partners. Religions should not be involved in either contract.

Did William Barnes and Gilbert Noble need a religious ceremony to become partners? Did William Proctor and James Gamble walk down the aisle of a church to become business partners?

by Anonymousreply 6803/25/2013

Marriage is civil AND religious for those who want it to be. It's not that complicated.

by Anonymousreply 6903/25/2013

Just because a certain percentage of people got married in a church in the U.S. does NOT mean that churches OWN the sole right to marry people. And don't forget, there are other nations where churches haven't wrested control of marriage contracts from the government as we have seen in the U.S. They can have wedding ceremonies but it's not something that creates a legal contract. Those nations have a better separation of church and state that is not available in the U.S.

Our government of the people, by the people, and for the people is lacking in many aspects where we're far from #1.

by Anonymousreply 7103/25/2013

[quote]Many gay young men who subscribe to bridal magazines and live the entire wanna-get-married existence are to a significant extent driving this movement.

That's the biggest bucket of shit that's been posted here all day. I don't know any gay men of any age subscribing to bridal magazines but I know plenty who want the RIGHT to marry if they ever decide to do so.

It's morons like R70 who think the DADT repeal was only the campaign of gays in the military. It's morons like R70 who think no Caucasians supported the Civil Rights Act. If an intelligence test were required for people to post here, we would never see a single word from the gay-bashing sicko at R70.

by Anonymousreply 7203/25/2013

R15, you are nuts. The biological ability to have a child is not a "right". All human beings are equal before the law, but all human beings are not the same- some are tall, some are short, some are male some are female, some black some white etc. The same laws apply to all human beings but the same attributes do not apply to all humans. You are a tad confused.

by Anonymousreply 7303/25/2013

Marriage is not soley a religious institution. In fact it is primarily a legal act and as such comes with a list of legal rights to married couple available only to them. You need a license! None of this has squat to do with the sacriment of matrimony of the Christian church.

Any church or organized religion that does not want to marry a gay couple can. But all gay couples should have the right to a legal marriage, marriage license and rights guaranteed thereby.

by Anonymousreply 7403/25/2013

[quote]so are civil unions and domestic partnerships.

"Why are you complaining? After all, the back of the bus gets there at the same time as the front of the bus?"

[quote]Put them on the same playing ground and the problem is solved without bothering the religious right.

No, actually, it's not, because the religious right is also opposed to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Like literally every other assertion you've made on this thread, this, too, is incorrect.

You're arguing from ignorance, as your every post makes clear. For example, your assertion that gay marriage hasn't been around long enough to discuss divorce rates ignores the several countries where it, in fact, has. Or the idiotic assertion that "90% of married couples ... had their wedding IN A FUCKING CHURCH," which is also incorrect.

Over and over again, you've been wrong, either because you're a troll or because you haven't even taken the time to do a 30-second Google search before demonstrating your ignorance. Instead of educating yourself, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.

by Anonymousreply 7503/25/2013

[quote]Many gay young men who subscribe to bridal magazines and live the entire wanna-get-married existence are to a significant extent driving this movement.

Oh, bullshit. Look at who is actually taking advantage of the right to marry. I don't see a lot of "gay young men who subscribe to bridal magazines" in that crowd. This was a dumb statement to make.

[quote]We behave like this push for our rights has been on for hundreds of years.

What difference does it make if it's "hundreds of years" or, in the U.S., 50 years? The real push couldn't take place until the environment was right.

[quote]I'm old, and I can tell you this just happened and there will be pushback.

Moron, there has already been pushback. That pushback is now subsiding and the younger generation now overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage and gay civil rights. The worst is already over!

[quote]Just wait.

For what? The dinosaurs are dying off; things will only get better. Or weren't you paying attention in the last election?

[quote]Right now, women support us gays because they have a gay bff who shops, does lunch, gossips and carries things. The men go along because they want pussy. As I've typed so many times, that's all there is to it.

ROFL.... Thanks for confirming you're a moron.

by Anonymousreply 7603/25/2013

[quote]I would rather have a change brought about by society making a demand than having something driven top down by the government.

Why? If we followed this prescription, miscegenation would still be illegal in some states.

[quote]Societal change, while taking longer, is so much more meaningful.

To whom? To those finally given their fundamental civil rights? I assure you that they don't care whether it came from the courts, from the voters in a referendum, or from the legislature.


We don't think you're uneducated for having an opinion; we think you're uneducated for having a woefully uninformed opinion and for spouting provably false assertions over and over again.

by Anonymousreply 7703/25/2013

R67 - that explains it all. You are waiting for the government to solve your problems instead of doing anything yourself.

by Anonymousreply 7803/25/2013

OP = Brandon.


by Anonymousreply 7903/25/2013

Marriage is important to the flyovers who want to emulate heterosexuals who they feel inferior to.

by Anonymousreply 8103/25/2013

R81 - Marry me. ;-)

by Anonymousreply 8203/25/2013

It's not that important to all gays OP. Why assume it is?

by Anonymousreply 8303/25/2013

And why assume that the choice is mutually exclusive? I want the full range of choices available to me and to everyone. That includes marriage; that includes non-traditional relationships.

by Anonymousreply 8403/25/2013

[quote]Marriage is important to the flyovers who want to emulate heterosexuals who they feel inferior to.

Hey, remember when New York got gay marriage and there were all "Whatever" about it?

by Anonymousreply 8503/25/2013

Why is straight marriage important. Shouldn't straight people form their own identities and traditions?

by Anonymousreply 8603/25/2013

It is about equal protection under the US constitution. Right now, you can stay together for decades, if one dies, the other one has no rights to their joint property nor custody of their kids. These are all assumed for heterosexual marriages.

Why can't we settle down for civil union? We could, only if the US Constitution is amended to acknowledge such as equal to heterosexual marriage. Otherwise, the union or marriage will not be acknowledged by all states like heterosexual marriages. Again, we are not equally protected as the US Constitution states.

by Anonymousreply 8703/25/2013

They have and lemmings are flocking to their norms without question.

by Anonymousreply 8803/25/2013

The repeal of DADT resulted in every flyover gay member of the armed forces coming out and putting rainbow flags on their pink guns. It's the same with marriage equality. Every flyover gay person is going to get married as soon as DOMA is struck down.

Those are the simple facts. I hope you're not overwhelmed by my brilliance.

by Anonymousreply 8903/25/2013

You seem to have an issue with the definition of "facts," r89.

by Anonymousreply 9003/25/2013

op, it;s not about "forming identities".

It's about 1000 financial and legal rights we are denied without it.

figures a 24 year old self-admitted psychopath would ask such a stupid question.

by Anonymousreply 9103/26/2013

So much ignorance on this thread. Seriously. What is wrong with some of you?

Marriage Equality is important. Equal rights are important. Equal opportunity is important. Freedom of (and from) religion is important.

by Anonymousreply 9303/26/2013

[bold]Why Is Gay Marriage Important?[/bold]

The Bill of Rights.

We're all individuals -- regardless of sexuality -- and people have the right to become married. The United States Constitution does not say there are only certain people who have that right to be married.

The 2004 re-election campaign of George W. Bush was used as an attempt by homophobic people -- including the 43rd president -- to annihilate non-heterosexuals by messing with the Constitution and creating discrimination on a federal level. It was also cynical because Bush was trying to flip 2000 Democratic states, like Oregon and Michigan, by getting a constitutional ban on both states' election ballots with hopes those votes would correlate with backing him in the presidential race. What was harmful about it was not only that the proposal passed in both states; what was harmful about it was that voters were given the opportunity to determine individual rights of people for whom they may/do not approve. And that's harmful with respect to the Bill of Rights. "Majority" does not rule. If it did, African-Americans may still not have the right to vote. And there was a time when women didn't have the right to vote. (Now they outnumber men. And I'm sure men wouldn't appreciate it if women were to be able to go to the polls and decide on a ballot proposal whether men can still be allowed the vote.)

[italic]Again . . .[/italic]

[bold]"Why Is Gay Marriage Important"[/bold]

It's important for basic reasons; fundamental ones with respect to individual rights. It's important because we are a part of American society.

[italic]Another question is this:[/italic]

"How can we actually be a [italic]United[/italic] States of America if marriage is only between one man and one woman? Is that being "united"?

by Anonymousreply 9403/26/2013

This pic will explain it to some of you, I hope:

by Anonymousreply 9503/26/2013

r3 is correct in that legal equality doesn't automatically lead to social equality or any other kind of equality. But it sure as hell is a start.

by Anonymousreply 9603/26/2013

R96, our laws do reflect who we want to be, and yes, changing the laws can and does change attitudes and actions over time. Not universally for everyone, obviously, but it helps. Nobody is claiming it's magic.

Besides who the fuck cares what other people THINK, it's about equal treatment under the LAW.

by Anonymousreply 9803/26/2013

Most right-wing Christians are so far from Jesus and his actual teachings, it's not even funny.

More "projection", accusing others of what is true of themselves. It seems to be a consistent conservative mental-illness.

by Anonymousreply 9903/26/2013

Keep this conversation is vital to ALL of us. This is such an important day!

by Anonymousreply 10003/26/2013

I want to marry R99.

The main reason gay marriage is important is that so called minorities have the same rights and choices available to them as the majority. Equal rights are just that and are for everyone. What many people -- especially the right wing Christians -- don't get is that you don't have to be the same to be equal. Just because you don't "believe" in "changing" marriage is not a reason to deny others the same right to it as you have.

So, even if personally, you don't consider marriage important for gays, it is important for you to have the same choice available to get legally married just as straight people have that choice available to them. Otherwise, legal marriage is a privileged country club in which gays are not allowed to be a part of if they want to be.

by Anonymousreply 10103/26/2013

Isn't denying gay people the right to marry a violation of the 14th Amendment?

by Anonymousreply 10203/26/2013

[quote]I should also be able to get the same advantages if I am in a long term, non religion based, relationship

You can: it's called "getting married".

Oh, right, you don't "believe in marriage". You sound about as intelligent as people who say they "don't believe in homosexuality.

And AGAIN: marriage is not "religion based", at least not the marriage that we're advocating. Marriage equality simply means that gays have the same right to a [bold]civil marriage or a marriage contract[/bold]. Civil marriage, being regulated by government entities, cannot offer, regulate or advocate for religious marriages, because we have separation of church and state in America.

You are aware that many straight couples don't seek or participate in religious marriages, right? And that they're still married in the eyes of the law, just as much as anyone who had a big church wedding.

Civil marriage grants over 1,100 unique rights, most of which cannot be cobbled together with a few private legal contracts, even if every gay couple could afford a lawyer to do that.

Marriage rights affect how two people pay taxes, including getting taxed for domestic partnership benefits that married couples enjoy tax-free, or the fact that a tax filer can't claim the child tax credit for a partner's children, even if they are head of household and the primary breadwinner.

It also affects immigration law: a Frenchman can marry any American woman he's known long enough to fill out a marriage lisence and voilà! He's a full-fledged US citizen. But a gay Frenchman who's been in a committed relationship for decades can be deported with no recourse because the government doesn't recognize their relationship.

There isn't an attorney in the world that could circumvent these federal laws with a few private contracts. You can secure inheritance and property rights that way, but you can't make yourself eligible for certain tax credits or exempt from immigration law.

And their are 1,100+ more rights that ONLY come with marriage. See the link and educate yourself.

by Anonymousreply 10303/26/2013

Gay people should have the same choices as straight people, including the choice to form their own couple-identity or to enter into a legally recognized marital state.

We are not a separate nation and our legally-recognized options should be equal to those that straight people have in benefit, breadth, scope and responsibility.

by Anonymousreply 10503/26/2013

Bravo R103!!!

by Anonymousreply 10603/26/2013

[quote]I have never been to a marriage that didn't take place in a church. Hence MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND OPINION.

Clearly, your personal experience is severely lacking in real world experience. How old are you that the mere concept of civil marriage befuddles you? Why are you so myopic and narrow-minded that you can't even fathom people whose experiences differ from your own?

Non-church weddings are not unusual. My sister was married at the same venue where the reception was held, and a cousin-in-law did the same; no church, non-clergy officiant. My sister-in-law got married at city hall with 2 witnesses. Then there are people who elope, or a friend of mine who had a civil marriage with her fiancée over a year before their church wedding. They were already engaged, but one of them lost their job and benefits, so to qualify for the other partner's work benefits they had a quickie marriage at the courthouse. A year later they had their big church wedding as planned. In the interim they hardly told anyone of the earlier civil marriage and continued as if they were still just engaged, but they were legally married and hence could enjoy one of the 1,100+ benefits of civil marriage: sharing benefits tax-free and without question. No lawyer on earth could have drawn up a private contract to make that happen, it's one of [bold]the 1,100+ rights that only come with marriage.[/bold]

If you're over 30 and have never been to or heard of a non-church wedding, I'd say you've lived a pretty sheltered life and you severely lack the intellectual curiosity that might encourage you to learn about people who are different from you, or who have different experiences than you. At the very least you're not qualified to debate the issue, since its obvious you are misinformed, mistaken and/or just plain ignorant of the facts of this issue.

by Anonymousreply 10703/26/2013

WTF is wrong with Kennedy? He doesnt know why we are even hearing this?

by Anonymousreply 10803/26/2013

I think Kennedy is not the only Justice wondering why they're looking at something like this since California's government no longer supports Prop 8. Perhaps they'll kick it back to a lower court -- where California won't defend Prop 8 -- and it lets the Supremes off the hook.

by Anonymousreply 10903/26/2013

[quote]Why can't we settle down for civil union?

Because first we would have to decide what a civil union actually is. You can't just write a new law that introduces a new class of people, but only define that group's rights as "everything that other class of people enjoy, except the name". Governments and legislators would have to go through every law pertaining to marriage rights (all 1,134 of them!) and pass new laws that grant those same rights to same-sex couples through a civil union.

Every state legislature and both houses of congress would have to write and pass about 1,134 new laws to make civil unions truly equal to marriage. Do you think that will ever happen? 50 state legislative branches plus the House AND Senate, working in tandem to pass 1,134 new laws? Don't hold your breath.

But that's only IF the states or jurisdictions in question really DO define civil unions as having the same rights as marriage. From what I've read (over the past decade of following this issue and advocating for it through political activism), rarely are civil unions discussed as being EXACTLY the same as marriage, except in the most vague way. Since its a new and inexact legal concept, it's open to wide interpretation. I just flat-out don't trust that civil unions will ensure all of the rights of marriage. I don't trust that laws granting civil unions won't be repealed at some point, or redefined, or limited.

Full marriage rights for all is the only fair solution. We should settle for nothing less.

by Anonymousreply 11003/26/2013

The Supreme Court can also rule on the fact that California allowed the right to marry, thus the State can not take back a civil right that was granted to citizens of the state. That would narrow their decision to only apply to Prop 8.

by Anonymousreply 11103/26/2013

To me while I don't personally care for marriage and don't want to get married either, it's important because of the principle: why should straights be allowed but gays not allowed? It should be fair and equal access either way.

by Anonymousreply 11203/26/2013

Good for you R112 -- you stated the perfect answer in a concise statement! The answer is correct whether from a straight or gay perspective because it's a human equality perspective, but many right wing Christians especially think that they must go with what they "believe" which is really just a homophobic belief "supported" with tiny passages from the Bible (homosex issues didn't even make the 10 Commandments ha.)

by Anonymousreply 11303/26/2013


by Anonymousreply 11403/26/2013

HA. David Letterman just asked Brian Williams if there are any gay members of SCOTUS. Williams answered, 'No, there are not.' Letterman said, 'How do you know.' Brian was dumbfounded and Letterman appologised for asking such a dumb question. I thought it was a brilliant question.

by Anonymousreply 11503/27/2013

Stop arguing with Paul. He's a militant faggot troll who likes to respond with long condescending screeds. He needs to get severely gay bashed.

by Anonymousreply 11603/27/2013

[post by racist shit-stain #3 removed.]

by Anonymousreply 11703/27/2013


by Anonymousreply 11803/27/2013

I don't personally know any young gay men that are 100% passionate about gay marriage (in L.A.). I guess it makes sense. What young man (gay or straight) gives a fuck about marriage?

Marriage is boring and it is what boring straight people do until they have kids and become even more boring.

by Anonymousreply 11903/27/2013

Why are you here, r121? If this place turns your stomach so much you should avoid it.

by Anonymousreply 12203/27/2013


by Anonymousreply 12403/27/2013

[quote]Many gay young men who subscribe to bridal magazines and live the entire wanna-get-married existence are to a significant extent driving this movement.

You are an ignorant jackass with zero knowledge of the issue.

I don't know a single gay male subscribing to bridal magazines.

I've also been going to gay weddings for decades now; they have no legal standing, but for some couples it's important just to publicly affirm their relationship, throw a party and collect some gifts. The notion you have that gay marriage activists are fighting for the right to perform a ceremony followed by a party -- a right already guarenteed by our freedoms of religion and assembly -- illustrates how ignorant and uninformed you are.

Marriage bestows 1,138 rights to opposite-sex couples that go far beyond inheritance rights and tax codes, and includes many rights, like the right to citizenship afforded to the foreign-born spouses,that can never be cobbled together with private contracts even IF every gay and lesbian person could afford a lawyer.

And why should they? Why should gay people have to pay thousands in legal fees and hours of time cobbling together some half-assed semblance of a legal relationship, when any straight couple who met 3 minutes ago can go to the courthouse and receive a marriage liscense after 10 minutes and about $15?

This flippant attitude -- "they just want to throw a big faggy wedding and rake in piles of gifts" -- is beyond insulting. It reveals an attitude that still considers gay relationships to be inferior to straight ones, and sees the wishes and aspirations of gay people to be inherently frivolous and worthy of ridicule. It's ignorant bigotry, plain and simple.

And furthermore: I don't even want a wedding, and I sure as shit don't want one modeled on the hetero ideal. What I want is [bold]EQUALITY[/bold].

I want my partner automatically recognized as my spouse and next of kin.

I want to walk (or be wheeled) into a hospital and not worry if my partner will have access to me or if anyone will even consider him my family or heed him when he states my wishes or concerns.

I want to file a joint tax return and get all the same breaks opposite-sex couples do.

I want to share my partner's benefits, like his company-sponsored health insurance, without the government taxing it as additional income (a penalty married couples don't suffer).

I want the couples I know where one partner is an immigrant to be able to stay in this country as citizens, and be free to leave and re-enter the country at will.

I want my gay parent friends to have families that are wholly recognized and equal under the law.

I want the same-sex partners of biological parents, who help raise and support their kids together, to be recognized as co-parents just like any other parent, bio, step-, adoptive or whatever.

Marriage creates a family, defined by relationships like spouse or parent. Even childless married couples are family; marriage confers next-of-kin status to a non-blood relative, who is automatically recognized as such in legal or medical situations.

Anyone braying that the fight for gay marriage is about throwing a fancy wedding is flat-out STUPID at this point.

by Anonymousreply 12503/27/2013

R125 has it right. Gay marriage means equal marriage because it's all about equality.

by Anonymousreply 12603/27/2013

The gay marriage issue only exists because gay people have bought into the conservative monogamous-for-life mindset. But no one wants to admit it.

I understand about the "rights" issue -- but the solution is to either 1) give those rights to everyone regardless of marital status, or 2) take those rights away from everybody regardless of marital status.

No one should have "special rights" just because they have found a "life partner" (or not).

by Anonymousreply 12703/27/2013

[quote]The gay marriage issue only exists because gay people have bought into the conservative monogamous-for-life mindset

Who is talking about monogamy? Where did you pull that bag if bull from?

There are plenty of marriages, gay and straight, where both partners willingly choose non-monogamy. Those marriages are still recognized as valid and afforded all the same rights as monogamous marriages.

Monogamy has nothing to do with it.

(Pay attention to this next part because you clearly aren't getting it)

The fight for marriage equality is about EQUALITY.


by Anonymousreply 12903/27/2013

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but gay people are actually capable of DUMBER anti-marriage-equality arguments than straight people.

by Anonymousreply 13003/27/2013

What R123 said is exactly right, and I have said the same before.

There would be no reason to come to a site populated with people you claim to hate, other than to get your fix of what you have deeply suppressed.

by Anonymousreply 13103/27/2013


by Anonymousreply 13203/27/2013

R.I.P., OP. I'm so sad to hear that you slashed your wrists and bled out in the bathtub this morning.

by Anonymousreply 13303/27/2013

It's not about forming our own traditions, it's about legal rights--benefits, inheritence taxes, etc. We live in a state where our marriage is recognized, but it's really just a formality until the federal government recognizes it. My partner will likely always make more money than I do, it'd be great I could collect her social security benefits someday the way my mother collects my father's.

I don't even care if it's called a civil union or a marriage, though calling it anything but marriage wouldn't be really equal. I just don't want to get screwed and don't want to see others get continue to get screwed.

by Anonymousreply 13403/27/2013

R121 writes:

[quote]this site is still around, i stopped coming here because of people labeling every actor gay.

Why did you return?

by Anonymousreply 13503/27/2013

A civil marriage license confers over a thousand individual rights, responsibilities, and privileges... it defines two "strangers" as "family" in the eyes of the law, elevating them even above blood relatives.

For couples where one or both extended families are homphobic, marriage is a very necessary law. There are way too many stories of one partner dying, and their family swooping in and taking everything (supported by the legal system), leaving the surviving partner with nothing, sometimes not even a place to live. Even after 20 and 30 years of a solid relationship.

Anyone who asks "why is gay marriage important" is an ignorant moron of the highest order, completely oblivious to the world around them. It's such a fucking stupid question, with such a blatently obvious answer.

Equal Treatment Under the law. Period.

by Anonymousreply 13603/27/2013

[quote]R.I.P., OP. I'm so sad to hear that you slashed your wrists and bled out in the bathtub this morning.

Nope. Still alive. Still support marriage equality.

Maybe if you can't see the benefit of being able to give credible responses to the same tired talking points the anti-gay crew shits outta their mouth ... Well, maybe YOU should slit your wrists.

I think this is a great thread, and I've stolen a lot of the great responses to shut down a lot of these bigots that have been popping up on FB the past few days.

by Anonymousreply 13703/27/2013

Because I want all of my husband's assets when he croaks.

by Anonymousreply 13803/27/2013

I am totally pro gay marriage. No one is forced to get married, but the equality of opportunity is there.

I get the arguments that it's a form of heteronormativity, but it's interesting that the same gay men that who rail against heteronormativity usually seem OK with replicating it sexually, i.e. 'penis fits hole'.

by Anonymousreply 13903/27/2013

OP why did you post that claptrap at r3 then?

by Anonymousreply 14003/28/2013

People talk about gay marriage as though it was hypothetical, but the fact is that there are (and always have been) same sex couples who live together, share responsibilities and property, and raise children just as opposite-sex couples do, and in fact if they were opposite sex couples would be protected by common law marriage statutes even if they never legally married. So the question is, is marriage still an important enough institution, legally, culturally and psychologically, that there is a clear public interest in extending it to gay couples as well as straights? I think most Americans would say yes and this is what's swaying public opinion towards marriage equality.

The nature of marriage in American society is changing radically anyway since half of all marriages end in divorce and more women have become economically independent of men and it's increasingly acceptable for them to have sex lives and raise families without benefit of marriage. "Traditional marriage" as defined by right-wing ideology is a nostalgic fantasy, but there are real, fully functioning gay marriages that would greatly benefit from being officially acknowledged by government, the courts and their communities, and withholding this vital benefit from them is looking more and more backward and barbarous every day.

by Anonymousreply 14103/28/2013


by Anonymousreply 14203/28/2013

Shouldn't they just call it lesbian marriage for as much as most gay men care for the idea or rush to the altar?

by Anonymousreply 14303/28/2013

why do so many people not understand that "gay" applies to both men and women?

by Anonymousreply 14403/28/2013

R144, 99 times out of 100, if you mention the word "gay" to anyone, they think of a gay man. Lesbians already have the term "lesbian" all to themselves; why the need to be greedy?

FWIW, I hope this shit gets passed on a federal level, so that lesbian marriage --- err, I mean "gay marriage"--- quits hijacking the national discourse on all things gay at the expense of a). gay youth problems b). HIV/AIDS education and c). gay hate crimes/homophobic violence. As a gay man, I am not against gay marriage obviously, but I do think there are more pressing problems/issues that I would rather focus more on (and which I contribute $$ a lot more to than "marriage").

I don't know or understand who or when or why it became decided that gay marriage was the be-all end-all of all things gay.

by Anonymousreply 14503/28/2013

Wanting to get married or not wanting to get married is beside the point.

It doesn't matter if I want to get married or even if I think other gay people - or straight people for that matter - should join in matrimony.

There are a great many things I don't want to do - even things I don't think others should do - but that doesn't mean I think gay people shouldn't have the same right to do them as straight people do.

by Anonymousreply 14603/28/2013

r145 can't see the forest for the palm trees.

by Anonymousreply 14703/29/2013

R139, I've seen this incredibly weak argument pop up on this message board quite a bit and it's painfully idiotic. If anal sex is heteronormative so would be every other form of sexual contact such oral sex, hand jobs, kissing, even cuddling. . . . Just being in a relationship would heteronormative, buying a house together, sleeping in the same bed would all fall under that category. Men have engaged in anal sex and all other forms of sexual contact long before gay existed as an identity. It's an absurd argument.

by Anonymousreply 14803/29/2013

gay marriage is just a slice of the whole pie. what's important is that ALL people are created equally and should be treated equally. Until EVERYONE is free, no one will be free. Once everyone is free, marriage won't be an issue.

by Anonymousreply 14903/31/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!