Ok Listen The Fuck Up. If You Aren't For Marriage Rights For All, You Have Your Priorities Fucked.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

That's my take on it.

I used to believe that the word didn't matter, as long as all rights were assigned (equality). I no longer believe that.

I've rethought the issue lately and realized how dumb I was. See, the fact is, we're arguing over a fucking word. A word. A definition.

For anyone to put a simple fucking WORD, a stupid fucking DEFINITION, as a higher priority and as being more meaningful than the ACTUAL CIVIL RIGHTS THEMSELVES, has just simply got their priorities fucked up.

It's a fucking word. How the hell does WHO the word applies to affect fucking anybody? It doesn't. It is simply just something those stubbornly hold onto who want it to just remain as applicable to THEM. It doesn't affect THEM, they just don't want to be included in the same group as others who want the same label. Well guess what; that's bigotry.

The only remotely legitimate reason for wanting it to be called something else is due to religious reasons. Well guess what; religion should have NO PLACE IN LAW.

A word. It's just a fucking word people. Could some of you actually stand there and try to convince me that a fucking WORD and the definition applied to it is more fucking important than giving an entire group of people the joy, recognition and constitutional right of equal treatment and acceptance under the law?

Throw your stubbornness in the trash, take a deep breath, and think about the issue a bit more deeply ok? What happened with these propositions is a disgrace.

That is all.

[unpossibles]

1. What needs to happen is this

anyone who is already married in CA needs to take this to court somehow as a discrimination case. Immediately. It needs to go all the way to the SCOTUS so that no state bans can happen.

Would that work?

[Oregone]

2. Actually, I am for abolishing all marriage

Sorry to not be on board. The state shouldn't recognize religious institutions.

[HockeyMom]

3. Civil Unions for all

Civil CONTRACTS that is. Abolish civil marriage. Keep the sacred, holy sacrement of matrimony for churches and those who want that.

[Coventina]

4. I'll bet employers would love it. No more benefits for spouses! n/t

[Oregone]

12. How do you figure? Mandatory coverage for all domestic partnerships

That would be the government's recognition of the relationship

[Coventina]

14. Sure, that'd be okay, as long as the government mandates it.

And the employers follow the rules.

On edit: Your original post didn't say anything about civil or domestic partnerships, though. That's what I based my response on.

[FreeState]

6. Marriage as issued by the state is not a religious institution n/t

[Oregone]

13. Precisely the problem.

[FreeState]

24. No - civil marriage is NOT a religious institution at all there is no problem n/t

[tavalon]

115. I think a civil partnership and a religious "marriage" should be two

mutually exclusive things.

[gollygee]

7. Good thing the state doesn't recognize any religious institutions

since civil marriage isn't one.

[Sirveri]

20. The problem is fundies getting hung up on a word.

If changing all 'marriage' to civil unions, just changing the name across the board makes them STFU, then it's probably worth it. Then they can have their church 'marry' them get their civil union document, and gay folk can go and get their civil union docs at the county clerks office like me and my wife did.

[Oregone]

29. Exactly.

[gollygee]

31. You think that's going to solve this issue?

You are naive. They will not be happy so long as gay people get the same thing they get. No matter what it's called.

[Oregone]

36. I don't know. I think it would help a whole damn lot.

Sort of uproots the entire counter argument that is acceptable for them to use socially. All theyll have left is hate, which is going to marginalize their influence.

[gollygee]

38. All they have is hate already

and hate still carries a lot of influence.

[Oregone]

42. They influence the ignorant masses with their "defense of marriage" language

Thats not going to work with "defense of civil unions" :)

And that is basically the gist of my point.

[gollygee]

It gives them ammunition

if gay people are trying to get married and in their pursuit the religious masses are no longer married, then gay people have indeed "destroyed marriage" in their eyes.

[Oregone]

48. Hey, the can still have their godly weddings and call it whatever the hell they want.

But the government will have a different name for it. And hell, if its destroyed in their eyes, no damn reason to continue fighting for it. :)

[gollygee]

49. So then you're for the "seperate but (supposedly) equal " thing?

That isn't very progressive at all. Any lease at all can be written to only allow married people and not people in civil unions. For one example.

[Oregone]

56. Not at all. Domestic Partnerships are equal for all...

And everyone and anyone is welcome to do whatever private ceremony they want in their free time to "certify" it to themselves, and they can call it whatever they want. But the state should only have a single name for it.

[gollygee]

58. But a private person leasing an apartment could write the lease to

only allowed *married* people, and not people only in civil unions and not married. If they are separate things, they are separate.

[Oregone]

65. There would be no such thing as a legal definition of "married"

And no one would meet such a definition.

Further, since "domestic partnership" is the new term for what used to be "marriage", it is a protected group and that is housing discrimination.

The marriage would, in such a system, be separate in that it doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone except those that have it. And anyone could privately have one.

Sort of like a Bar Mitzvah. You cannot buy cigarettes after you have one (unless you are legally an adult), but you are welcome to do it. No skin off anyone's back if you do. No one can sell an apartment to *Jews that have had bar mitzvahs* only.

[gollygee]

66. Then, again, you will have made the right extremely angry because marriage will not exist

and as far as they will be concerned, The Scary Gays will have destroyed it. Just as they predicted.

[Oregone]

70. fuck em.

As I said, they can still have their private ceremonies and call it whatever they want (anyone could). I won't stop them.

[gollygee]

72. If your attitude is "fuck em" why do you want to change the name in the first place?

They won't let the legal name of marriage be changed because that would be the destruction of marriage, which is their whole fear. There is no way a move for that would pass. That's much less likely than gay marriage passing.

[Oregone]

75. Because this is about getting the support of the people in the middle.

Their entire argument is that "domestic partnerships" are currently called "marriage", which is 'traditionally' (religiously) defined as heterosexual (according to them). If you can give "domestic partnerships" a name that isn't "marriage", then they can no longer make that appeal to the masses, who are stupid.

Perhaps an approach can be to neutralize the language on the legal document in order to comply with different religious/non-religious/cultural groups, who may not consider "marriage" to be the proper term for their relationship. Hence, the language is extremely discrimitory against these people, and it forces them to be in a certain type of union for civil-rights that they do not want (I am talking about heterosexuals here). Once you get that, then bam, work on expanding the newly named union to include everyone.

[Kilroy003]

80. I'm with you.

Where do I sign up?

[tavalon]

117. I think he's saying all of us who wish to partner, hetero and homosexual,

should have domestic partnerships rather than the mix of religious and legal that is entailed under the term "marriage".

[Sirveri]

94. I don't know. That's the truth.

But most of the polling I've seen that people are much more eager to support civil unions for GLBT folks than they are marriage.

Will there be some bigots who hate gay people simply because they're gay and it's against some random thing they believe. Sure. But the saner ones who just don't like the idea of gay MARRIAGE, simply because it's called marriage, tend to have no problem calling it civil unions. So if all marriages were called civil unions, it would pass the hump and suddenly the GLBT community would have 'marriage' rights the same as everyone else.

Anyhow it's just an idea, there are plenty of ways to attack the issue. I personally think that if simply changing the terminology is enough to get past the 50% barrier, then that would be the easiest way to do so. Going the court route tends to bring a lot of bad blood. The only other way I see is by putting a prop on the ballot to basically remove prop 8 from the constitution, which I also don't see working out very well.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Your Position Is Worthless As It Relates To This Debate. And You Should Be On Board.

Declaring that you want marriage for no one is an idealistic and completely unrealistic point of view, since it would NEVER happen. Therefore, we are left in reality. In REALITY, the GLBT community is being denied their rights due to a petty fucking definition. So in REALITY, you should absolutely be on board, since the real world is generally the only thing that matters. In the real world, GLBT'ers are suffering. In the real world, one small step in easing that suffering is by giving them federally protected equal rights. Now are you going to sit there and tell me you aren't on board with that, because you feel your unrealistic and idealistic point of view that marriage shouldn't exist at all trumps their constitutional rights to sharing in it?

[Oregone]

16. This isn't an unrealistic position at all...

Instead of states producing "Marriage Documents", they instead produce "Certificates of Domestic Partnership". Its merely a word to start with. Traditionally, the concept of marriage is a social/religious union, and not something a state should be recognizing or in the business of issuing. Hence, if they merely shift the language, it would move the GLBT fight milestones, being that there would be far fewer people anti-domestic partnerships for them.

Marriage is a ceremony that people can privately perform to enter into one of these unions, and it is how they are welcome to conceptually think about it. But, the state will only think about it as a legal matter called a Domestic Partnership.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. It Is Beyond Unrealistic. And You Are Missing The Point Completely.

Reread my post so that you can see exactly why your stubbornness is foolish as it relates to this.

You said you weren't on board. What you SHOULD say, is that you are 100% fully on board until such a time comes that marriage doesn't exist at all.

[Oregone]

21. Look, the problem is that it isn't just a word. Its a religious word (like it or not)

And as long as you have the government and religion intertwined, you are going to have issues.

My solution is to separate them, if only in language, so that knuckle-draggers don't trip over their brain thinking about it.

Call "marriage" universally "domestic partnership". This is the legal designation for the relationship that carries civil rights, tax benefits, etc. THEN, fight to allow GLBT access to it, which will be 100% easier.

Allow marriage to exists as a private means for someone to certify their domestic partnership, which is largely ignored by the state. All the state should care about is the signatures on the document and the processing fee.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Please, Just Answer The Question. You Are Stuck In One Gear.

No one is questioning your position. We get it. We really do. You can stop explaining it now.

What I'm asking, is that in significant amount of time it would take for your position to be realized, do you or don't you agree that GLBT'ers should have the ability to marry just like anyone else.

It is a yes or no question. Your reply requires only one word. Please, just answer the question. It is a legitimate one.

[Oregone]

32. Yes, but should does not mean they will

And if they fight enmasse for the right to "marry", it will be much longer until the 50 states see that materialize than if the route I suggest is taken.

[NorCalDem]

33. "Marriage" is not a religious word in any way, shape, or form...

Webster shows TEN (10) uses of the word, up to and including descriptions of a sacred unions, nautical uses, food/wine definitions, and furniture.

Don't believe me? Look it up...

[Oregone]

39. The problem is that....THEY disagree...Right?

Get it yet?

If "marriage" is not a religious word, and simply means "civil union" to you, then why aren't you for changing the name?

[gollygee]

43. It won't work and it just is an excuse to put off giving people the rights they deserve

You tell millions of married people that they are no longer married, just civil unioned, and see if that gets votes the next time this issue comes up. They'll see that as PROOF that teh gayz are destroying marriage.

[Oregone]

50. Hey, its worth a try...votes aren't coming up as is, are they?

The government changes the names for things all the time, you know.

[gollygee]

51. No, it isn't worth a try

it will make things worse and take us backward, and take a lot of money along with it.

[Oregone]

54. Personally, Im not sure what options are there currently...

To be honest. Im saying good luck. You can't expect children in the sandbox to play nice all the time. Sometimes thats what it appears to be. Maybe the children will grow up, but they have had plenty of time. I am glad it is legal where I am and not an election issue.

[gollygee]

57. Same-sex marriage will be legal before too long regardless

The pendulum has started swinging the other way. It's inevitable at this point.

[Oregone]

And Harry Truman put UHC into the Democratic Platform in the 40's

:(

Sometimes when children in the sandbox are too busy throwing sand at each other, they don't have time to build castles. I think the society has a lot of growing up to do, and that doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes it takes decades.

Im trying to suggest a way to trick a childish society into granting everyone the same rights under the law. You are suggesting a childish society is going to instantly grow up. Who knows what is more likely.

[gollygee]

64. You aren't going to trick anybody

They don't want gay couples to be recognized in any way. But they will lose because public opinion is shifting, and has been shifting pretty quickly. The proposal similar to Prop 8 in Michigan lost by a TON a few years ago. There was no contest at all.

[Oregone]

67. And I personally don't think you are going to make anyone grow up.

Good luck with that. I mean it. Maybe when I come back, things will look better. I will wait and see.

BTW, I think this is a much better idea than my other of making Gay Marriage mandatory for all. Im still working that one out.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Because marriage

is perfectly descriptive of what it is. All marriages are civil unions. No state will recognize an marriage without a civil imprematur no matter who performs the ceremony. What you are proposing is far more radical and far reaching. That is, you are suggesting that straight folks who eschew a religious ceremony must also no longer socially define themselves as married.

[gollygee]

35. No. Marriage means "joining together"

it isn't even specific to people, and it isn't religious.

[Candie Date]

41. If it's a "religious" word...

...than the Government has zero business defining marriage period.
What if a religion believes in same-sex marriage? Are you saying the Government has the right to deny THAT marriage?

[Oregone]

46. No, Im saying the government shouldn't be in the business of defining, recognizing, enforcing any...

"marriage". Whether you agree or disagree, "marriage" is a religious concept to probably over half of your fellow citizens (and not a state term).

Let the government instead define, enforce and recognize domestic partnerships.

You can change minds by merely changing a name.

[Candie Date]

60. Then what you say doesn't solve the problem.

And in fact "marriage" is NOT a religious term.
The fact that "over half" of the citizenry is so deluded, does not change that.
If it IS a religious term, than Prop 8 cannot stand, as the Government has no right to ban something of a religious nature.
There are many religions and churches (temples) that accept the concept of same-sex marriage.

[Luminous Animal]

83. What!!!

The state is and has been in the business of defining, recognizing, enforcing, etc. marriage for centuries. The state (including all it's agencies - tax and otherwise) do not recognize a marriage unless performed by an individual who is sanctioned to do so by the state. Thus, a priest, or rabbi, or reverend, or whatever, cannot legally perform a marriage unless the state has granted the right.

[JackBeck]

45. If it's a religious word, than how come atheists are afforded the right to marry? n/t

[Oregone]

53. It sucks, doesn't it. I didn't want to be "married". It was the only choice I had

Perhaps this is something important to consider...

Look, if marriage is define according to some traditional construct that is incongruent with the spirtual beliefs of atheists, perhaps it is them who can most aptly advance this cause to the courts to have it renamed to something neutral and not discrimatory. The religious right uses the concept that it is a religious institution constantly, and that is just fodder for the atheist to use (especially if rulings uphold this, which they probably will not).

[Luminous Animal]

86. What did you want to be then?

Civil unioned? An untold number of people in this United States have, for 2 centuries, been married every year without benefit of clergy; that is, by a civil servant. And since, historically, they've been straight, no religious folk have raised a stink about them "appropriating' the word marriage. But, as soon as gays and lesbians presumed to avail themselves to the same civil service ceremony, all of the sudden, marriage is solely within the realm of their definition of god.

Well, I'm in a heterosexual relationship and I got married at city hall and I feel no less married and than any religious couple.

[tavalon]

118. That would be my position completely

Gays want this and see it as a way to be equal. I support gay equality. If this is the way for them to feel equal, I will and have fought for this right. I will fight for my fellow polyamorists when our time comes up, but unless I need a certificate of insurability (that's what we call that thing that the government calls "marriage") I won't personally partake. This despite the fact that I've lived with one of my partners for 7 years and one for 2 years. We are going to have a marriage fairly soon but I want my government to have no part in it. Now, the fact that I could at any time be charged with bigamy is a problem.

[tavalon]

116. I think the mixture of church and state that heteros have been practicing

for a hell of a long time is a problem. But gays want to join up under that problem and since they do, I support them in their desire. I am very committed to both of my partners and have in the past been married and the level of commitment for me was the same - ergo I want to live in a world in which marriage is a spiritual bond and civil unions are the legal bond, but I don't care to dictate how it should be for others.

[Warpy]

9. Then you've completely missed the point

There is a whole body of civil law covering the promotion of a non relative to first degree relative status, which is what marriage is.

That includes such human rights as the right to visit a sick spouse in the hospital even if his/her family doesn't like you and the right to claim a spouse's body after death.

Think about it.

[Oregone]

18. Ive thought about it. Those civil rights are fine and dandy...

I welcome them to apply to all domestic partnerships.

Leave "marriage", an institution that many believe is sanctioned by God, out of it. The government should not enforce religious law or social tradition. Domestic Partnerships can serve to provide those rights in a black and white legal manner.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. So You Are Fully On Board Then With GLBT'ers Having The Rights To Marry, Until Such A Time That

marriage ceases to exist?

This is a yes or no question.

[Oregone]

26. Look, I think everyone should be able to "marry", but it shouldn't mean a damn thing to the state

"Marriage" should be nothing more than symbolic is what I suggest. "Domestic Partnership" needs to be the legal designation for the relationship. And once that happens, I fully believe GLBT will easily be able to access those rights.

Yes, I am in support of GLBT being able to have partnerships with rights. I just disagree on the process on which needs to be followed and how people need t conceptualize the relationship in the future.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

27. Then why is marriage a "sacrament"?

Aren't we mixing apples and oranges ?

I would like to see religion and state separated. I would like to see civil unions as the only legal way to "promote a non relative to first degree relative status" for all couples - hetero or homosexual. Anyone could go to Town/City Hall and get united civilly. The only restriction should be age based - you can't be a minor.

Then, if a couple wanted the blessing of their church/religious group, they would go and get that also. But that ceremony/sacrament would not be regulated by the state. Each religion could chose whom they wish to extend the marriage blessing to. If your church did not want to extend it to you, its time to change affiliation. It would have no legal standing. A blessing without the civil union would not be valid for purposes state or federal law.

Does that make sense to others ? I'm sure there are holes in my logic.

I don't know how we would get there from here.

I was so sorry to hear that Prop 8 was not defeated. I was very happy to see that we in CT defeated the ballot iniative yesterday to have a constitutional convention because I know exactly where that was heading after the CT Supreme Court recently struck down civil unions. The Court is supposed to issue a ruling any day now spelling out when gay couples will be able to marry in CT.

Looks like they will issue it on 11/12

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--gaymarriage1103nov03,0,1362626.story

[gollygee]

40. My marriage isn't a sacrament

Marriage is not religious. It just isn't. It's a civil joining, and churches are able to do it if they wish to.

[JuniperLea]

52. Wrong

Religions MADE it a religious thing... They BELIEVE it is a religious thing. It's not merely a civil joining to the Catholic church. They don't recognize marriages that were not performed IN the church BY a priest. THAT is just how it is. I don't like it, but it is absolutely so.

[gollygee]

55. No, it isn't wrong

Churches are allowed to marry people, but that doesn't make the word "marriage" religious. Churches have just been allowed to perform the ceremony if they wish.

[JuniperLea]

61. Try telling that to a priest...

You are preaching to the choir here... I know what you are trying to say, and I agree. That isn't going to change anything. The almighty CHURCH is the one who needs told... fat chance that is going to happen.

To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. It is a sacred right given to them by God.

"What God has joined together, let no man cast asunder."

Just try telling a priest it isn't a religious thing, then get back to me.

When you are fighting a battle, you must know your enemy.

[gollygee]

69. We have separation of church and state

the catholic church doesn't write our laws.

[JuniperLea]

73. I agree... but tell it to a priest!

To Catholics, marriage is a sacred deal. Period. THIS is what cost us the votes!!! THIS is what you and all the rest of us are fighting!!! Arguing that it isn't a sacred deal is NOT going to change a damn thing.

It's going to take a lot of thought to get around this.

[Orsino]

77. There was no priest, rabbi, imam or any other religious official in attendance at my wedding.

Arguing that my marriage is somehow religious in nature is not supported by evidence.

[JuniperLea]

79. Tell that to the religious whack jobs that trashed Prop 8!!!

Jesus fucking Christ on a Triscuit with Swiss!

I'm not the one who believes that crap! I'm not the one you need to convince! I am merely pointing to the reason this prop failed in CA!!!! I am merely pointing to the thing that we need to turn around!

Fuck it.

Just fucking fuck it.

You know, you try to help people get what they want. You try to explain what the fuck went wrong, and all you get is stupid fucking arguments that don't mean shit!!!

Fuck it.

I'm done for now. You whiny asses can fight your own goddamn fight if you want to be so fucking ignorant as to ignore the fucking facts.

I'm tired. And I've had it.

[Orsino]

85. The whackjobs want marriage confined to religion so they can own it.

Marriage isn't keyed to particular religions in the US, though, and religion isn't referenced at all in the rights marriage affords.

[JuniperLea]

88. It is in the Catholic church!

You damn betcha it is!

"What God has brought together, let no man cast asunder."

The Catholic church doesn't even recognize marriages that happened outside of a church, without a priest!

SOME churches perform non-religious ceremonies. For Catholics, it's all about the religion. And marriage to them is a sacrament.

This is what we are fighting. Ignoring it, or claiming it isn't so IS NOT HELPING! IT IS MAKING THINGS WORSE!!!

[Orsino]

91. No church or other religious institution has any say in my marriage...

...and shouldn't be handed control over anyone's--nor should any voters.

[JuniperLea]

92. That's the point...

It shouldn't. But the Catholic church, among others, thinks they have the right to dictate. And it is their right to hold marriage as a sacrament WITHIN their own church, but not outside their church. That is the bit they don't get, and that is the bit that needs to be our focus.

Look, I'm a straight woman and a recovering Fundie. This is not my private battle. I'm just trying to help others see the perspective of their opposition.

[Orsino]

97. Uh-huh. I don't think I disagree with you...

...except perhaps in not buying into the "marriage is religious" meme. I think it's a dangerous idea that should never be propagated even as devil's advocacy--not for a moment.

One's marriage is as religious as one wants it to be, of course, and an awful lot of us want our religion elevated to universal authority. The American default for the rights and responsibilities of marriage, fortunately, is still a non-religious certification by a state or other local government, with no religious participation required or even expected.

[JuniperLea]

98. You can take the kid out of the Catholic church...

Catholics are never, ever going to give up on their marriages being a sacrament. As much as I agree with you, it is their right to feel that way as much as it is their right to think that homosexuality is an abomination. I don't like it. I think it stinks. I'm not a practicing Catholic, however. It is their right. What is NOT their right is to take away civil rights from another human being, based on their own beliefs. Law based on religious beliefs is a very bad thing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

111. Would you stop making this all about Catholics? For God's sake

Of COURSE marriage is a Catholic sacrament. This is not relevant to anyone who is not Catholic, so I have no idea why you feel the need to belabour the point endlessly in this thread. The Catholic Church also doesn't recognize civil divorces unless an ecclesiastical annulment has been granted, but divorces are still legal, aren't they? Stop acting like the almighty Catholic Church is dictating our laws - it's disingenuous. A LOT of different religions and organizations are opposed to gay marriage for their own agendas - you conveniently ignore that it was the fucking Mormons who BANKROLLED the entire "Yes on 8" campaign. This was THEIR nasty little brainchild, not the Catholics. Do I want the Catholic Church to stop being so reactionary and conservative? Of course I do, and I am not going to deny that the Church pushes intolerant and narrow-minded opinions of homosexuality and marriage. But you're acting like the Catholic Church has some svengali-like power to sway the entire legislative process, and that's completely missing the larger point.

[JuniperLea]

130. Get a grip

I was illustrating an argument against someone saying marriage is NOT a religious deal. It is a religious deal to religious people.

You my dear are the one who is missing the point, and have decided to preach to the choir.

[Warpy]

108. Because people feel the need to gussy it up with hearts and flowers

and then scare the participants with the spook in the sky if it doesn't work out as planned.

That's why.

[JuniperLea]

23. I get it... and you are absolutely right...

This is really about a separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious thing, not a legal thing. You can't force religion, or religious organizations, to do anything, nor should you be able to. It would have to work both ways, and we sure as hell don't want religious organizations dictating our laws!

Marriage is a word. Would we be so upset if a group of people wanted to call roses by another name? Of course not.

All that said, these religious nutjobs who insist on being so un-Christ-like need to get a grip. If their marriages are so fragile that it needs "saved", they are in a heap of shit anyway.

[gollygee]

47. Marriage is NOT a religious thing, and the gov't CAN'T force any religious institution to do squat

No matter what happens, the government will not be able to force any religion to marry anyone. They already can't and don't. A church can refuse to marry anyone it wants, for any reason or no reason.

[kevinbgoode]

101. It sometimes amazes me how little straight people know about marriage.

There is no such thing as a legal "religious" marriage in this country. None. There is no legal recognition bestowed upon Church marital directives.

Every marriage IS a CIVIL MARRIAGE. A church ceremony is just that - a CEREMONY. Of course, the ignorance and tyranny of the majority in California apparently want the institution to be religious in nature. And that's just fine. The laws should be passed immediately stripping the statutes of special marriage laws and assigning the regulations to the church. Anyone who wishes to "marry" in a church will be legally forced to ABIDE by that churches policies concerning marriage.

The rest of us can have the protection of "civil union/marriage" laws. It's time to kick the religious nutcases out of our government and let the blowhards who spout righteousness be forced to adhere to their own church teachings. You can bet church weddings will drop off to nothing as soon as the parties realize they'll be held accountable to the church vows.

[crispini]

5. Well said!

:applause:

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Gays and lesbians just have another setup. What are they complaining about?

[Initech]

11. Amen!

[orleans]

15. "What happened with these propositions is a disgrace"

oh yes. it is a complete and total disgrace. (CIVIL RIGHTS FOR SOME!) unfuckingreal. those people who voted for these bans should absolutely be ashamed of themselves. i know i'm ashamed of them. and many call themselves democrats? they should rethink their small mindedness--real dems want civil rights for EVERYONE.

shame on them.

[csziggy]

37. "Why are you against civil rights for Americans?" Ask those who were for

These vile propositions and amendments. Because they just took a basic right away from a significant number of Americans - the right to be happy with the ones they love.

[NorCalDem]

22. You are absolutely correct.

Do you know what it is called when you pour liquor from one bottle into another? It's called "marrying" bottles.

"to marry" and "marriage," as words, are used to describe MANY things including but not limited to the union of a man and woman. IT IS THE RIGHTS THAT MATTER, who cares about the word used to describe it :)

[Booster]

25. I also want marriage rights for single people.

[GreenFiles]

34. So they can have visitation with their non-existant partner??

These issues involve visitation rights, custody of children, and property issues. In effect, non-issues for single folks.

[Booster]

44. I call bullshit. Everyone has a best friend they would want by

their side. Explain to me why one group should have benefits another group doesn't have?

[GreenFiles]

63. You said it yourself.... best friend.

How many best friends have you had kids with? How many do you own a house with? I'm all about my best friends, but they don't need to be in my will.

[Lilith Velkor]

76. Single people also own homes and have children

Big shocker, I know. :eyes:

[Oregone]

78. Despite being single, if you and your BF live together, share income, raise a family together...

Then hell yes, you should have equal rights and get the protections this destination brings. And when one of you becomes "non-single" (you split up), maybe you should split half of everything too in a civil divorce.

Or are you just talking about a buddy down the street you want to share your insurance with?

[Lilith Velkor]

82. I'm for making the insurance issue moot with universal healthcare

As for marriage, I support separation of marriage and state. Giving couples tax breaks just for being couples is total bullshit IMO.

[Booster]

103. Thank you for making my point better than I made it.

[Booster]

107. You didn't answer the question.

[RedCappedBandit]

112. Friendships aren't the same as intimate relationships. nt

[mondo joe]

143. So if they want those benefits, the best friends can marry.

Deal done.

[Midlodemocrat]

30. D00D!!! I am SO PROUD of you!!!! You have totally come around!!!!

Way to go, OMC!!!!

[cliffordu]

59. Yep, yep and yep.

[cynatnite]

62. They want to make their religious beliefs law....

It violates separation of church and state. I find this attempt to deny people basic rights offensive and it goes against everything this country stands for.

In my heart, I truly believe this travesty will be done away with. It may take a while longer than we want, but it will happen.

[onlyadream]

71. will it?

I don't know, it seems that these groups are so vocal and are really taking over. Yes, they were defeated yesterday, but that's b/c Obama had such a well run campaign.

[cynatnite]

105. It does seem like it, but I truly believe we will prevail on this...

It's inevitable.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. Actually

these groups are being called on the bull shit and have been removed from power in a landslide across the board. The hate crowd is on the way out. So don't get your hopes up.
The LDS in CA awakened the sleeping liberal giant that is the Golden State. Watch and learm

[onlyadream]

68. Here's my opinion

if anyone cares;
if the religious institutions want to limit marriage to a man and woman that's fine - it's their rules and they can do what they want. However, the state should have nothing to do with religion, and marriage should be between anyone who wants to be married. Unfortunately, the religious people vote according to their religion and the state ends up being influenced by these people.

[JuniperLea]

74. Yes... that sums it up nicely

We cannot fight the Catholic church and the Mormon church on this... to them marriage is a sacrament, a really sacred deal.

They need to understand this isn't a "thought police" measure. No one is forcing anyone to "accept" gay marriage or gay people. Some religions say this is an abomination... there's nothing we can do about that. What we can do is say, look, no one is asking you to accept anything. You don't have to accept gay marriage at all, you don't have to perform the marriages in your church. That is the church's choice. Some will, some won't.

We cannot force someone to "accept" gay marriage. What we need to focus on is the fact that it is discriminatory to NOT allow gay marriage. It doesn't need to have anything to do with a church at all.

[Lilith Velkor]

84. Why should the state have anything to do with marriage?

It's none of their business.

[Luminous Animal]

87. So we should abolish all civil marriages?

No one can be married unless they get married in a religious ceremony?

For what it is worth. All legal marriages are civil unions. Yes, even those performed by clergy. A marriage will not be legal unless said clergy received prior sanction from the state to perform marriages.

[Lilith Velkor]

90. Which violates separation of church and state.

I'm not cool with that.

I'm saying marriage should be purely ceremonial, and not a legal means of discrimination against the unmarried.

[Luminous Animal]

102. That means changing the legal definition of marriage...

which is what the fundies are attempting to do.

You say that marriage should be purely ceremonial. That would change thousands of years of history in which marriage was and is a legal contract. The secular humanists have history and the law on their side in this use of "marriage".

I propose that we retain marriage as the legal contract that it is, and the religious accept or reject that and call their unions something else altogether. Holy Matrimony comes to mind.

[Lilith Velkor]

104. No, that means abolishing marriage

As an atheist, I don't give a fuck what churches do, as long as they stay out of the government. on edit: This means clergy should not be invested with any state power whatsoever.

In those thousands of years of history you mention, marriage was a legal contract by which a man gives ownership of an item of property (namely, a woman) to another man. The oh-so-enlightened, ahem, "secular humanists" can take that legal and historical tradition and shove it directly up their collective ass.

[Luminous Animal]

106. I'm an atheist...

and I am married. I got married at city hall. The ceremony was performed by a civil servant. My friends and family attended, we had a huge party following.

The right of performing marriage ceremonies is not restricted to clergy. Most states allow judges, magistrates, notary publics, county clerks, justices of the peace... Some jurisdictions allow a person to be licensed to perform marriages for a day.

I never once said anything about tradition. Legal definitions do change overtime. The modern contract is what enables partners to make life and death decisions for one another. It gives them the right to retain guardianship of children and control of property. That contract, in fact, confers a thousand or more legal protections to both parties. These are protections that my gay and lesbian friends are not afforded without spending thousands of dollars in legal fees.




edited for spelling.

[Lilith Velkor]

109. No, you said "thousands of years of history and law"

Which is the same damn thing as invoking tradition.

People can rear children and conduct their financial affairs without being married. The fact that your gay and lesbian friends (and mine) have to spend all that money is because of institutionalized discrimination against single people.

Why continue it? Are married people really more valuable than unmarried people?

What about equal rights?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. There Is No Discrimination Against Single People. I Find The Argument To Be Absurd.

In what possible ways are single people being discriminated against as it relates to marriage and the rules that apply to it?

[Lilith Velkor]

123. Married people get tax breaks just for being married.

I think those tax breaks should go to parents, whether they are married or not.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Parents Do Get Tax Breaks. You Also Failed To Show Anything Discriminatory Against Single People.

The marriage tax bracket isn't discriminatory against single people whatsoever. There are solid logical reasons as to why married people have a different tax bracket. The primary reason is not PENALIZE people for getting married, since their combined income would put them into a higher tax bracket. It makes perfect sense to have a system that doesn't encourage that.

But having a tax code that chooses to not punish a couple for being married, is in no way discriminatory against those who aren't. You are not paying higher taxes because you are single. Married people simply aren't paying higher taxes as a penalty for having been married.

There is no discrimination against single people. I'll await further debate from you as to why you think there is, when there is yet to be a situation presented in which they are discriminated against.

[Lilith Velkor]

127. The combined income is only recognized in married couples.

An individualized tax code wouldn't punish anybody for being married, it just wouldn't reward it. The rewarding is what's discriminatory.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. You're Wrong There As Well And Really Need To Open Your Mind. You Are Oversimplifying.

Forcing them to file individually is completely illogical. How would you split up deductions fairly? It would be a nightmare. Married couples don't SPEND their money individually so why should they be taxed as if they do? Many or most of their expenses are of a combined need, so the tax law takes that into account. That is why they combine the income, since most married households spend with a combined income. The reason that combined income is not taxed at a higher tax bracket is because that would be essentially punishing the marriage.

Pushing an argument that married people should be taxed as individuals is pushing a concept that married people's lives, expenses and ways in which the money is spent is not changed once married. But such a concept is ludicrous on its face.

Everything from bills, mortgages, charitable contributions, repairs, discretionary spending, food and other ways money is spent is completely shared by the family unit itself, and therefore should be combined. The only thing marriage does in tax code is keep that change from being punished by being pushed into a higher tax bracket. The tax law instead recognizes the changes of finances that marriage brings and does its best to be fair as to what rate and tier they should pay. Such a practice is logical and reasonable, and is in no way discriminatory against single people.

Thinking it is discriminatory is simply closed minded or possibly ignorant. If it's one thing I can't stand, it's the mentality some people have that cause them to be bitter about anything as it relates to someone having something beneficial that they themselves don't have. Jealousy. Bitterness. Resenting others for things they themselves do not have. Having a mindset where they'd rather someone be punished just so they could feel equal, even though no where in the equation would it help them in any way. Giving married people the single rate hurts them for real reasons due to the way finances change once married. It wouldn't affect your rate whatsoever, it would just make you grin at the punishment of others for sake of your own selfishness. Such mindsets contribute to what makes this world such a shitty place sometimes.

But such a mindset of bitterness towards something solely based on the person not liking that someone has something that they themselves want, does not make such an event discriminatory.

The tax code does not in any way discriminate against single people, and if you were able to open your mind up to the realities of why the code is set up the way it is, you'd realize that.

So do you have ANY other examples of discrimination against single people, or was that highly shallow and non-credible one the only one you are able to come up with?

[Lilith Velkor]

135. Single people who live together also spend a combined income.

The tax code doesn't give a damn about that, so why should it be different for married people? Are they just more special or something?

The point you fail to get is that revoking privilege is not the same thing as punishment. Rather than looking at it as giving married people the single rate, one could look at it as giving single people the married rate.

Unless, of course, one is hopelessly closed minded and/or ignorant.

Oh, and one more thing: if bitterness and jealousy bother you so much, why are you not denouncing the selfishness of gays and lesbians who want to get married?

[mondo joe]

144. And those single people living together can choose to marry.

There you have it.

[JuniperLea]

93. This is a very good point to consider...

"A marriage will not be legal unless said clergy received prior sanction from the state to perform marriages."

The church and the state look on marriage differently, but for it to be legal, and for it to provide all the legal tax and human rights, it must also be legal.

[onlyadream]

120. Yes, it is.

It's a legal agreement.

[mondo joe]

142. The state has an interest in recognizing contractual partnerships. NT

[funkybug]

89. My Standard "Joke" isn't so funny anymore

I used to coin a phrase I heard from a comedian I've long since forgotten.

"What's the problem with letting gay people get married? They deserve the right to be miserable just like the rest of us."

But it's just not funny today, no matter how hard I try to spin it.

See, as breeders with full rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I don't think we have the right to say we know misery the way gay people know misery. At least we have a choice to be miserably married (not that I am, but follow me ...)

I guess I don't understand how denying someone the right to enter into a legally recognized contract makes my legally recognized contract any more "protected" than it was yesterday.

[tavalon]

119. I'm about to play devils advocate here.................

So, if gay people are being made miserable by other people deciding they can't have marriage, am I supposed to be doubly miserable because the state not only will not allow me to marry my two partners but would even potentially charge and arrest me for bigamy? And before you get all over my case for creating a hypothetical over the top situation, it isn't created. I do live with my two partners and have for years.

I personally am not a bit miserable. I don't care to have the government decide whether to sanction my partnership choice.

[Gwendolyn]

129. There's a difference between your situation and that of gay people wishing to marry one person.

Polygamy is not beneficial for the health of a society. Population ratios of females to males are roughly even. If polygamous unions were the norm, there would be yet another large disparity between society's affluent versus those who are not. Obviously, the more well off would attract more mates, while others may be left without a mate at all. This imbalance would then create an even more competitive, perhaps violent society than we already experience. We have only to look at the animal world :) or those extremist polygamous cults where young males are literally driven out while the old fart pedophiles keep virtual hareems.

This is actually one of the slippery slope worries of some, even moderates... that gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of different unions that people aren't ready for. It's a major worry for religious bigots (the disintegration of society) and the thinking that allowing gay marriage will suddenly cause a mass, global sexual preference shift, resulting in same sex kissing and hand holding in public all around them.

Education is key, as always.

[tavalon]

133. I'm already living in a polyamorous multipartner relationship

I'm not seeing how this is all that different. There aren't many people (even less than the number who are gay) who chose this way of relating. BTW, those of us who are not doing this for religious reasons prefer not to use the term polygamy. It has some encumbrances via the mormons.

[RedLetterRev]

148. There is THE major difference:

You can "choose". Whether you have one mate or more, that mate will be of the opposite sex and society will cut you some slack at least on the one.

We are who we are and get no breaks since our partners will be of the same gender. That is the insurmountable hurdle in the fundies' minds and the one reason they hold out to their thralls that we are somehow subhuman and must be destroyed.

I know plenty of polyamorous gay families, so don't tell me I don't understand at all. It's always going to be the "gay" thing and not the polyamory that will cause the fundies to flip their wigs and the first thing that will rally their troops.

[curse of greyface]

138. I'm okay with polygamy... what consenting adults want to do is none of my business.

And your arguemnet against it is very weak. It treats women as commodities rather than people.

The idea that we should prevent pologomy cause all men deserve a gal... even the losers is insane.

It's a woman's choice who she marries and under what circumstances nobody elses.

Woman are adults and can make up thier own mind.

They are not objects to be handed out to men.

[endthewar]

95. Maybe gay marriage isn't a very important issue to some voters

Personally, I probably would have voted for either party with the more sane foreign policy positions. The neoconservatives in the Republican Party are just insane. I completely disagree with you about "priorities". People have the right to determine what is most important to them, and gay marriage isn't very important to some voters.

Oh, and your tone isn't exactly part of a convincing argument. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. You Have No Idea What You're Talking About.

This was a specific proposition, meaning each voter had to directly vote for the proposition itself. My position on priorities was completely accurate. And my tone is the absolute right tone to take when arguing against bigotry.

Please educate yourself on the actual issue that is being discussed, prior to responding to it from an ignorant basis (i.e. not knowing what the issue at hand actually is).

[yardwork]

136. If it wasn't important, then the voters should have voted to keep their constitution intact.

Would you go out and specifically vote to amend your constitution to take a minority group's rights away if the issue wasn't important to you?

[kwassa]

137. The whole problem is that many voters don't see it as a rights issue.

This is the basic difference in viewpoint and perspective between those that voted against is and those that voted for it.

I bet a large section of the electorate has never heard of the notion of "marriage equality", or heard it discussed as a rights issue.

And it is also hard to see it as a right being taken away, if the right doesn't seem to currently exist.

[yardwork]

139. You don't know much about this, do you? California made it legal for gays to marry last spring.

Since last spring, thousands of gay couples - many of them together for decades - were married. Did you miss all the articles and photos of happy couples?

If a large section of the electorate has never heard of the notion of "marriage equality" then why did they vote to amend their constitution to take away a right they'd never heard about? I think that they heard a lot about it. Their were well-funded campaigns telling lies about gay people.

Your argument makes no sense to me. Why would people who know nothing about a subject vote to do such an extreme thing as amend their state constitution to take away a right they don't care about one way or the other?

[kwassa]

140. Do you always try so hard to be insulting?

And I thought you were attempting a spirit of reconciliation and knowledge-seeking. My bad.

"If a large section of the electorate has never heard of the notion of "marriage equality" then why did they vote to amend their constitution to take away a right they'd never heard about?'

You missed my point, which is that they didn't think of it as a right, and therefore weren't taking rights away.

Got it? They simply thought it about ratifying marriage as being between a man and a woman, and probably not too much more beyond that. They cared about it to that point, which reflects their cultural attitudes and not much more. It did not seem extreme to them, but the way things had always been, from their vantage point. It probably took no more thought than that.

[yardwork]

141. What in my post was insulting? You clearly don't know much about this.

You stated that you thought that the right to marry didn't exist for gays in California, when in fact it did exist until it was taken away by popular vote last Tuesday. How is my observation an insult?

Meanwhile, you certainly seem very unconcerned about my rights. I'll remember that.

[kwassa]

145. Uh, I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth.

"You stated that you thought that the right to marry didn't exist for gays in California"

the hell I did. Where did you get that from?

and I am not unconcerned about your rights, but I am concerned about a lot of attitudes I do see around here. You want to understand the viewpoints of others outside your community, then listen up. Otherwise you will never garner the support you need in this battle, which you are well aware that you need. You understand the futility of attacking people that could be valuble allies.

I think that many people within their own communities to be fairly provincial, and that includes both the black community, and the gay community. Each is most concerned with what affects them and their lives, and pays relatively less attention to others their lives don't intersect with much. This entire argument, to me, exposes how little most white gays know about black people in the first place, and not much else. I'm sure the reverse is true, as well, as shown in this vote.

One important point that keeps getting missed is this: Gays see their dilemma as being a civil rights struggle akin to the black struggle for civil rights, yet most black people are offended by that comparison. This is a major perception gulf that needs to be addressed.

[yardwork]

146. Your post #136 above

And it is also hard to see it as a right being taken away, if the right doesn't seem to currently exist.

I'll ignore the rest of your sanctimonious, smug, self-righteous bullshit.

[kwassa]

147. Reading comprehension time.

I'm speaking from their point of view, not my own. Get a clue.

And if you want to stick your head in the sand, go right ahead. You seem to be good at it. You are incapable of seeing outside your own narrow little world.

[endthewar]

96. Maybe gay marriage isn't a very important issue to some voters

Personally, I probably would have voted for either party with the more sane foreign policy positions. The neoconservatives in the Republican Party are just insane. I completely disagree with you about "priorities". People have the right to determine what is most important to them, and gay marriage isn't very important to some voters.

Oh, and your tone isn't exactly part of a convincing argument. :eyes:

[readmoreoften]

149. ESPECIALLY TOMBSTONED ONES!!! BWA! HAHAHAHAHA!

[johnaries]

100. Take it to the Supreme Court. There is no way these laws

can be ruled as anything but a violation of civil and equal rights. Hasn't every State Supreme Court ruled that way? Or did I miss one?

[RainDog]

110. agreed

civil rights are civil rights and marriage, in this society, is a civil issue.

what any religion wants to do is their business, not the state's. And religious takes on this issue are not the state's biz to enforce.

[ruggerson]

113. thank you

recommended

[tavalon]

114. I believe marriage should be completely separated from legal partnerships

but I get that my POV is an unusual one and I get that gay folks want to have this weird mixture of church and state thingy that we heteros can partake in and because of that, I think gays should damn well have exactly the same marital rights that we do and I'm shocked and disgusted that this hasn't become a national right, like interracial marriage.

Now, mind you, even though I'm straight, I'm also a practicing polyamorist - my two partners and I are living together and we co-parent our child. We've been together many years. With as slow as the gay marriage fight is going it is likely that I won't see multi-partner marriages anytime in my life time but even if it were available, I doubt I would partake in the court sanctioned form of marriage but we are going to have a religious ceremony probably in 2010. It won't be recognized by my government but it will be recognized by we three and that really is what I personally consider important. We have living wills and luckily, their parents are really happy about our threesome. My parents and grandparents are dead so they aren't a consideration.

Point being, I'm uncomfortable with marriage for my self but I will and I have fought for you to marry if you wish. I think it's a no brainer.

[Zuiderelle]

121. You're right. The problem is that the opponents to our equality like to say the same thing.

Many of them on this very thread. Statements like "I'm for abolishing marriage altogether" or "I believe in civil unions for everyone"... yeah, right, the religious right (and many on the left) would never agree to taking away the word marriage. And why would they? Who in their right mind would agree to doing away with something like that just because of a WORD, when all the laws and benefits and protections already are written to include the word? What a waste of time and resources to completely rewrite and apply everything that is already written simply to replace a word with another word. Why do those opposing gay marriage have such a problem with a WORD?

[deaniac21]

124. Fuck, Fuckity, Fuck, Fuck

You remind me of the chef on Curb Your Enthusiasm.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. Got Anything To Offer As It Relates To Context Or Is The Empty Petty Personal Attack All You've Got?

:shrug:

[deaniac21]

131. content?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. Here, Let Me Help You Out:

context

noun
1. discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
2. the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context"

As in, do you actually have anything to say in response to what the argument is actually ABOUT, or did you just plan on saying stupid shit.

[deaniac21]

134. Hard to look at the content or context. When ideas are expressed

in such vulgar terms it is impossible to take the author seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

150. Here is the core of the problem

Control. Folks who want to control what is talked about and how it is talked about. Folks unconcerned with their own words and actions, but wishing to control the words and actions of others.
I wonder if this person is unable to take seriously the works of Mamet or Burroughs, of Chis Rock or George Carlin because they are so 'vulgar'. Well clutch my pearls and claim to be righteous!
Always amused by those who think the vile crap they spread is not seen as vile if they don't use vulgar language. They need to be told that pettiness and arrogance smell as sweet by any name one calls them.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

152. The bigot community needs to understand

that they are not Democrats, in any meaningful way. They are people who agree with Mitt Romeny, and are helping him to clear his path to the nomination.
People who support discrimination are not good humans, and they sure are not Democrats.

[dana_b]

154. married in a church or by a judge... divorced by

the judge. Not many take the time to get a marriage annuled. It's such a farce, imo.
I hope we can move past this by the time my kid is my age so that maybe her kids won't know how it "used to be".

[cate94]

155. Those who would like to change the word

marriage to civil union are apparently unaware that Florida just banned gay marriage, domestic partnerships and civil unions.

This is NOT about a word. Call it whatever you choose and they will still oppose it.

Look at Chicago1. He thinks that we gay folks just don't know that some Dems are opposed to gay marriage. LMAO. Really? And you came up with gem of wisdom where? Let me reassure you, we get it. That doesn't mean I am going to shut up, or go away, or stop trying to get full and equal rights. Hope that was clear enough for you.