Gay marriage in the USA

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 1:13 AM GMT
    I have recently read articles about the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. Over the past few years this controversial topic has been gaining popularity like wildfire.

    For the most part it seems that people are actually trying to fight for the term "marriage" to be incorporated as the status for recognizing the love and bond between same-sex couples. However, the opponents of this battle don't like the term "marriage" being used to define this commitment and use DOMA and biblical beliefs to buttress their opinions.

    After reading plenty of articles it seems that we should be fighting for the federal legalization of civil unions instead marriage. It seems that the reason why gays want to marry is so they can receive both recognition for their bond, but most importantly economic benefits. There is more support for civil unions than for marriage and civil unions look easier to be federally recognized than marriage. I believe that it is imperative for the gay community to take a more directive action into the federal legalization of civil unions. It is pretty much the exact same thing as a marriage, but just coined in a different term. Or maybe we can try to change the term to "civil marriage".

    Yea I know you guys are going to judge the validity of my comment because of my age.....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 1:18 AM GMT
    Does this mean you'd be happy if some guy you were dating had a banner flown over that said "will you civil union me?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 1:44 AM GMT
    haha lol...For legal purposes it can be called a civil union, but you can still say marriage if you want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 1:49 AM GMT
    That defeats the whole purpose. If they're going to do that for us, they should do the same for straights.

    After all, the bible NEVER implied any govt involvement in marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 2:39 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidThat defeats the whole purpose. If they're going to do that for us, they should do the same for straights.

    After all, the bible NEVER implied any govt involvement in marriage.


    I completely agree with the government involvement. Marriage is a religious ceremony and there is supposed to be a separation between the government and religion since this is a democratic country. This is just such a complicated issue to some...
  • Freddo

    Posts: 246

    Jun 24, 2012 4:07 AM GMT
    This is a valid viewpoint, and is one that I have been talking about in other message boards on other sites. In my state, Illinois, we have full same sex couple rights at the state level except for the word "marriage" being used at the official level. There is also a pending lawsuit that would just change our official state lexicon for same sex couplings to "marriage".

    While I do appreciate the sentiment, the lawsuit will not actually change anything at this time regardless of the outcome. Whether they call it a "marriage", "civil union", or a "turkey sandwich", gay couples would still have the exact same rights as straight couples at the state level and no rights at the federal level because of DOMA. I realize that civil unions and domestic partnerships in other states may not be at the same level as marriage, but Illinois' civil union law is all encompassing.

    However, the lawsuit may have some future benefits if it is successful. When DOMA is stricken from the books, maybe the feds will recognize same-sex marriage licenses from states that do perform gay marriages (including Illinois, potentially). Considering that the higher ups in the state level are not at all interested in keeping or defending our anti-gay marriage statute, it is looking like the statute will be overturned soon enough.

    What we need to do is fight DOMA tooth and nail. This is what will really make the difference in the fight for equality. If we don't, we will continue to stagnate nationwide in our progress. Our federal government does not recognize civil unions in any way, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

    As an addendum, It is also the case that people who oppose gay marriage oppose civil unions as well. Most of the constitutional amendments that prohibit gay marriage also prohibit other types of legal recognition of gay couples. I believe only 6 of the 32 don't prohibit civil unions as well.
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Jun 24, 2012 5:13 AM GMT
    I believe if we settle for the term "civil union" then we would be selling our self out.

    Sure, in the eyes of the law "civil union" may hold just as much bearing as marriage.

    However in the eyes of predominantly straight society, the term "civil union" will never hold as much value as marriage.

    Honestly, why should gay people have to settle for an entirely different relationship classification in the first place?

    I'm not for any type of "separate but equal" bullshit.

  • blueandgold

    Posts: 396

    Jun 24, 2012 9:26 AM GMT
    I'm always a little disgusted when people try to reintroduce the concept of "separate but equal." Haven't we learned anything from the civil rights movement?
  • bolero_of_fir...

    Posts: 551

    Jun 24, 2012 9:40 AM GMT
    Obviously not.

    Marriage is not a religious ceremony unless you decide to make it one. It wouldn't go against the idea of separation of church and state to legalize same sex marriage. It does however go against the idea of separation of church and state to ban same sex marriage based on religious grounds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 9:43 AM GMT
    I completely agree with the OP. I think it's funny that people get all hung up on terminology. I don't care what you call it, I just want to be able to sign a pre-nup icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 10:48 AM GMT
    FilmGuy18_notporn saidI have recently read articles about the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. Over the past few years this controversial topic has been gaining popularity like wildfire.

    After reading plenty of articles it seems that we should be fighting for the federal legalization of civil unions instead marriage.


    Ahh what articles, please name these?

    Yea I know you guys are going to judge the validity of my comment because of my age.....

    Yes we are : UGH! You have no idea. NONE. yes it is your age.
    Sorry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 1:35 PM GMT
    Separate but equal was wrong 60 years ago and its still wrong. Either gays should be allowed to marry or straight and gays enter into civil unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 2:12 PM GMT
    Of course gay people should have equal opportunity to be as suckered and miserable in marriage as straight people! Plus, I'm sure the wedding planning industry would enjoy the extra business. Yay for boosting the economy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 7:48 PM GMT
    I went to college in iowa when gay marriage was legalized here. One of the professors at my school got married to her partner at the school chapel. It was a lovely ceremony, some students and faculty were invited, they served cake, it was a perfectly normal wedding reception. After seeing that in person, I really found it hard to imagine how bitter and hateful some people must be to want to deny anyone that kind of happiness. I have a bit of a temper myself, but even I can't imagine ever being angry enough to want to deny that to anyone.
  • Havasu

    Posts: 135

    Jun 24, 2012 7:53 PM GMT
    It's odd how entwined the gay man and the straight woman are with weddings, but the gay guy can't legally get married in most places. Every reality show with a wedding involves at least one of these: a gay wedding planner, a gay florist, a gay wedding dress adviser/consultant and/or some gay guy doing her hair and makeup. You don't want a straight woman doing your hair on the big day. The "second class citizens" are helping to make the first class citizen's wedding a huge success.

    1011_say-yes-to-the-dress.jpg
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 25, 2012 12:22 PM GMT
    I would be ok with Civil Unions, if everyone was given a Civil Union- but that would only feed into the anti-gay idea that the "gays are trying to destroy marriage" argument. I just want to be treated the same, no similarly, to everyone else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 12:55 PM GMT
    Didn't Americans do that whole seperate but equal thing?

    How'd that work out?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 1:54 PM GMT
    TheBizMan saidI believe if we settle for the term "civil union" then we would be selling our self out.

    Sure, in the eyes of the law "civil union" may hold just as much bearing as marriage.

    However in the eyes of predominantly straight society, the term "civil union" will never hold as much value as marriage.

    Honestly, why should gay people have to settle for an entirely different relationship classification in the first place?

    I'm not for any type of "separate but equal" bullshit.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 2:23 PM GMT
    +2

    The other problem is that social conservatives like to justify their bigotry by saying, well, we're not against them having equal rights, but just call it something else other than marriage. But when the idea of civil unions actually comes to the forefront, surprise surprise, they oppose it just as strongly.

    They hate us and what we are no matter what we call it, so rather than splitting hairs in an effort to gain more incremental acceptance, we might as well go for the whole enchilada.

    Caslon19000 said
    TheBizMan saidI believe if we settle for the term "civil union" then we would be selling our self out.

    Sure, in the eyes of the law "civil union" may hold just as much bearing as marriage.

    However in the eyes of predominantly straight society, the term "civil union" will never hold as much value as marriage.

    Honestly, why should gay people have to settle for an entirely different relationship classification in the first place?

    I'm not for any type of "separate but equal" bullshit.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 2:37 PM GMT
    FilmGuy18_notporn saidMarriage is a religious ceremony...


    No, marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. States issue marriage licenses. You cannot be legally married without one. "By the power invested in my by the State of _______, I now pronounce you man and wife." That is why marriage should be viewed as a legal and civil right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:35 PM GMT
    murano said
    FilmGuy18_notporn saidMarriage is a religious ceremony...


    No, marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. States issue marriage licenses. You cannot be legally married without one. "By the power invested in my by the State of _______, I now pronounce you man and wife." That is why marriage should be viewed as a legal and civil right.

    Here in lies the problem and this is where everything gets messed up. What was once a religious ceremony was then coveted by the state for control. The state then delegated the powers to preform the ceremonies of marriage to the religious leaders as representation of the state (yeah, church and state comes to mind right here). At this point, religion began to take control of what marriage was according to their doctrine. Once the state started embracing the term "marriage" as a legal term it ceased to belong solely to the religious establishment and took on a dual meaning (legal and religious).

    Going back to rename the legal side of marriage as civil unions, which would allow for a distinction between legal and religious, would be a very difficult cultural change. Just look at the difficulty in getting society to understand that having a religious ceremony in a church will NOT allow you to be legally married unless you've gone to the county courthouse and picked up a license. Despite the simplicity of this and the fact that you can go get married at the courthouse with no religious involvement and still be recognized by the government as being married has left the gay community with some gray area in which to educate people.

    At this point, the entire issue has to be decided solely on equality and by legal decree. Once a decision is made regarding the legality of same sex couples to marry and be held equal in the eyes of the government, then religious institutions can decide how their doctrine addresses matrimony within their belief system. I'm sure some will embrace marriage regardless of sexuality and some will say no way.

    I think that will put the matter to rest. Of course, then you run the risk of losing everything if the decision ends up NOT being in favor of the gay marriage equality. However, I think with the change in societies attitude toward same sex couples, even if the high court were to rule against the equality of marriage, gay relationships would still be recognized more and more by society as acceptable and at the state level. I think at that point, it would be separate and unequal for some time to be. Oh the slippery slope we travel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    It's about equality. "Civil Unions" are a second class status for second class citizens. So fuck 'em.