Gay Marriage

[Will-Mun]

Well Jersey has the Civil Union passed, one of I think now only 4 states to have it, (I think it's still in the process of being passed in many states where it's not specifically banned, while other states have 'Domestic Partnership'). Honestly, it's a smoke screen. I think it should just be called marriage. But I am glad I am in a state that is, at least in part, half intelligent.

[AFPheonix]

Well....except that if the couple leaves NJ, they are no longer spouses, but strangers under the law, and the rights they gained as a couple are gone.
So here's to hoping no one gets injured while out of the state, because the other will not be able to see or be able to make decisions in the first's stead.

Oregon just passed a domestic partnership bill a few months ago, to become active next year. Conservatives are already sending out their petitioners to get signatures to see if they can put the new measures to a ballot.
If that happens, I guess I'll be cancelling out my mom's vote again.....sigh....

[Puckishone]

I'm a little surprised no one's advanced this argument in favor of gay marriage: the additional revenue for states and municipalities. Say a marriage license is $50, and your state requires a blood test (another $50 or so), and the couple in question want a big, splashy wedding at a posh spot (anywhere from $5000 on up into the freakin' stratosphere)...the possibilities are as endless as any given couple's desire to spend.

By the way, the legal basis for denial of same-sex marriage is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legally defining marriage as an act entered into by a man and a woman...signed into law in the 1990s by President Blowjob. Every time we rail against the religious nature of the current Administration's policies, I invite everyone to recall that fact -- it's all over the place, my friends.

Washington (State, my home) just passed legislation allowing same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples over 62 years of age to register with the state as domestic partners (at $50 a pop...ka-ching!!). While this isn't marriage, it does allow them certain rights that married couples would have (such as power of attorney and similar legal rights). It's a start, but in a state that most people think is just a shade less hairy-toed than Oregon, we should have made more progress by now.

Just think: Canada, Spain and South Africa are all more progressive than we are on this issue.

[protege]

By the way, the legal basis for denial of same-sex marriage is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legally defining marriage as an act entered into by a man and a woman...signed into law in the 1990s by President Blowjob. Every time we rail against the religious nature of the current Administration's policies, I invite everyone to recall that fact -- it's all over the place, my friends.

I find that humorous--the Act was signed into law...by the very same president who seemed hell-bent on destroying his own marriage. Anyone see the hypocrisy there?

While we're on the topic of insurance, suppose gay marriage did become legal. I have a feeling that we'd see a drop in the number of people without health insurance and other benefits.

[powerboy]

To me, it doesn't matter if you are gay. If you want to get married, then more power to you. I am not against gay people.

[CancelMyService]

I think it should be allowed by law, and if individual churches don't want to conduct gay marriages, then that's their choice. People talk about slippery slopes all the time, but once we start making laws stating who we can and can't marry, that can lead to all sorts of things no one of any political persuasion wants to see.

Along those lines, why is it that the traditional conservative viewpoint of keeping government out of people's personal lives doesn't seem to apply to their favorite wedge issues? To me it just exposes the bigoted and hypocritical stand on these issues when it goes against everything they supposedly stand for in other matters.

[blas87]

There are too many horrible problems going on in this world, too many to even list...

and yet all these right wing nutjobs care about is bashing gay people, trying to make it impossible for them to get married, doing everything in their power to prove that they are going to Hell........

It's ridiculous. Let's forget about destroying gay people's rights and focus on real problems. They deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[rahmota]

Well that is one reason why they are called HUMAN rights. As they shold aply to all humans. Too bad too many of the christian fundies dont see homosexuals as people.

Here is a site that has a good argument for homosexual marriage that I've borrowed or referenced quite a few times in the past.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Very intelligent and rational.

Puck: The DOMA was created and pushed throug by a republican ruled congress. While Clinton did not oppose it and does oppose homosexual marriage the act itself was not his invention. That is one of the thigns I do not agree with or like about Clinton though.

About the Act itself though. Since the SCOTUS is conservative based they ahve refused to hear any of the arguments about how unconstitutional the DOMA is. 1:it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
2: Discriminates againt people violating the Equal Protection Clause
3: and prohibits the Due Process Clause.

Among other things.

[Kara_CS]

Took me awhile to find this one, I don't do much Fratching.

It's probably pretty obvious where I stand on this issue. I'm fortunate enough to work for a massive corporation that offers "domestic partner" insurance. Sure, marriage is just the government recognizing the union of two people (well, basically). As was previously mentioned, it's not such a sacred thing, at least, not anymore. But why should anyone be denied the right to marry the person they love, no matter who that person is? To have concrete proof that you have committed yourself to one person for the rest of your life (at least, if you believe in true love and fidelity, which most married couples do not).

What strikes me the most contradictory of this entire fracas of an issue is that it always comes down to "God says it's wrong." These are the same people who expel students who have a Bible in school. The same people who are offended by the line "One Nation, Under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance. The same people who get up in arms about the "Separation of Church and State," which is THE most misunderstood line in the entire bloody Constitution (and the subject of a separate topic altogether). But when it comes to gay marriage or gay rights, everyone uses religion to fight it.

I'm religious. I'm not Wiccan, or a Satanist, or a Scientologist, or Klingon. I'm a Christian. I go to church with the aldulterers, child abusers, alchoholics, liars, wife-beaters, drug addicts, thieves, swindlers, gossipers, maybe even murderers (the BTK serial killer was president of his church congregation after all). But we're all there for the same thing, except those who go because they feel obligated to. God turns away no one from His house. What these people who declare that "God hates fags," and that gay marriage is a violation of God's law don't understand is that God IS love. Without Him, love cannot exist. The only thing in the entire Bible that it states God despises is sin, and all sin is equal. And he forgives all through love.

Knowing this, how can anyone who uses religion as a weapon of hate proclaim that love is wrong and should be denied?

I'll shut up now.

[Seshat]

I was part of a long debate on a mailing list over this issue - and the debate ended when we realised we were ultimately in agreement on the practicalities, and it was a wording problem.

The religious people saw 'marriage' and 'wedding' as words for a religious ceremony, and didn't care if the gay people attained the civil rights associated with marriage. They just didn't want the words 'marriage' and 'wedding' being hijacked for something that offended their beliefs.

The gay people in this particular discussion just wanted the civil rights, and didn't want to barge into religious institutions where they weren't wanted. They were using the words 'marriage' and 'wedding' because those are the current words for the legal arrangement under debate.

Once everyone understood that, both sides sheepishly apologised for having gotten so angry and heated about the discussion, and were all friends again. It was almost funny.

Obviously, this particular mailing list didn't include any of the religious people who are offended by the whole idea of homosexuals having permanent loving relationships; and our gay people who wanted a religious blessing for their relationship were of the 'I'll have it in a church that welcomes me, thanks' attitude.

Ever since then, I've told this little story to everyone who's tried to get me into a 'gay marriage debate', and it's pretty much shut the debate down.
Noone ever seems to want to argue that gay couples shouldn't have rights like being next-of-kin to their partner. At least, not in front of me. It's almost disappointing.

[squall]

As a conservative, I know my beliefs aren't all that popular on fratching sometimes. The previous poster basically summed up my beliefs on the gay marriage issue. I agree with gay "civil unions". By the way, I am not a Chrisitian, so there is no way I can be a fundie. I'm pretty much atheist, but at the same time conservative....I cling to values from an earlier time (even though I'm 25). Marriage to me is between man and woman only. If they change the definition of a same sex union to a "union" or some other word, then I am totally in agreement...but I know people will disagree with me because they don't see it as equal. It's just the way I feel, I can't really think of a good reason for justifying my belief....it just seems right to me, and it may date back to a time when I was being instilled with Christian beliefs from grandparents and such. And I don't believe gay people suffer eternal damnation or any such thing. I know I probably sound hypocritical, but my beliefs are just hard-wired into me.

[Rapscallion]

As a conservative, I know my beliefs aren't all that popular on fratching sometimes.

You still have views. As long as they don't break the UK's laws on hate speech, you're welcome to voice them.

I do find part of what you say disturbing, though. One system for us, one system for them - same but equal, right? That was used as a battlecry during the apartheid regime that finally fell when Rosa Parks declined to sit in the back of the bus.

What interests me is that you say marriage should be between man and woman only. Please, define marriage, but not just in those terms.

Raspcallion

[Boozy]

It's just the way I feel, I can't really think of a good reason for justifying my belief....it just seems right to me, and it may date back to a time when I was being instilled with Christian beliefs from grandparents and such....I know I probably sound hypocritical, but my beliefs are just hard-wired into me.

You don't sound hypocritical...just unquestioning.

Why should your beliefs be hard-wired? You said yourself that you can't think of a good reason for justifying your beliefs. Is it because you haven't given this particular issue much thought? Why believe what your parents or grandparents have told you? You have a mind of your own!

(PS - Please know that your views are VERY welcome here. How boring this forum would be if we all agreed on everything! )

[Will-Mun]

Yes, very welcome...Without opposing views there's nothing really to debate, and then it's just us loony liberals telling each other how right we all are...

But I do have to question why you hold Marriage as between a man and a woman. You say you're an atheist (or pretty much one as you said) but still want to keep gays from saying their married.

Christians say that want Marriage between a man and a woman because homosexuality is a slight against their god, and marriage is a ceremony binding two people before god, therefor they cannot accept that type of marriage...

We've also discussed why thats besides the point all together as religion has no place is American politics and law.

But you don't want to allow homosexual couples to be married out of sheer routine? Simply because it's traditional? It was tradition for a wife to come with a dowry only a couple hundred years ago...

I don't wanna be condescending, but it seems to me you're clinging onto baseless beliefs...

[rahmota]

Squall: Like I told ya before I'm glad to have your POV here. It would get rather boring if everyone was just sitting around monolouging at each other and patting us on the back for being so cool.

Although I do agree with Wil-Mun. Is a rose by any other name not still a rose? If you dont call between two homosexual marriage then that still seperates and can be used to demean people. Oh you've just got a civil union (words dripping with scorn) while we have a real marriage! (Said snobbily) So thats one reason right there why we need to use one title or name. Seperate but equal was found a long time ago to be very seperate and definately not equal. So either legally define everythig as a marriage or a civil union. But none of this you have a marriage you have a civil union you have a domestic partnership etc... stuff. And besides its not what you call it or what the piece of paper says but what the people involved in the relationship do and feel that makes it special or not.

You know there are a lot of traditions that fall by the way because they no longer serve a purpose, society has shifted away from the need or desire for those traditions or because people see how limiting and restrictive those traditions are. To keep doign somethign merely because it is tradition in the face of any reasonable reasoning (which by your own hand you admit) is rather interesting.

I mean in appalchia its traditional to fire off your firearms on new years eve. It used to sound like downtown baghdad every year growing up. Over the years with more people moving in and people discovering just how bad an idea shooting large amounts of lead into the air is (what goes up doth come down) that tradition stopped.

One of my beefs about this is so what if your beliefs are not such that you would allow two homosexuals to have a marriage. What gives a person the right to interfere or deny someone else the free action and pursuit of their life? Two homosexuals getting married does nothign to or against two heterosexuals getting married. Basically if a person levaes them alone and they leave others alone why bother them?