Civil unions for one and all. My fear is that, by rustling up all this drama over marriage, we're shooting ourselves in the foot and not getting basic rights that we should be allowed. The word "marriage" is loaded with meaning for much of the populace and makes it more difficult to make progress in terms of obtaining equalish rights. Progress, not perfection.
And odd phenomenon is that of France. Ever since "le pacs" (thought mainly for gay couples) came about, a whopping 85%+ of heterosexual couples are choosing le pacs over marriage. Yes, le PACS and marriage are different in France, but I was just astounded by those figures from last year.
While I lived there, I went to 0 weddings and 3 PACS ceremonies, all hetero couples. Also, 4 of my profs at Science Po talked openly about their PACS (all 4 males all 4 pacs'ed to women).
I don't understand why the United State a place everyone wants to be. Has an issue with men that want to get married. Like it would destroy your country if that happened. I feel it should be an non-issue. What you do in your own home is non of the goverments business.
hobronto saidCivil unions for one and all. My fear is that, by rustling up all this drama over marriage, we're shooting ourselves in the foot and not getting basic rights that we should be allowed. The word "marriage" is loaded with meaning for much of the populace and makes it more difficult to make progress in terms of obtaining equalish rights. Progress, not perfection.
that is exactly what i have been thinking, if they called it civil unions instead of gay marriage it would be MUCH easier to get
i know of so many people that say they dont care if we have civil unions, but they dont want it to be called marriage, i believe that we should get gay marriage, but if the only way we can get this rights right now is by civil unions, its better to get something than nothing
Yes, lets get marriage, but not call it marriage, because it scares some of the straights.. lets call it civil union instead, to make it easier for those scared straights...
Since when the fuck did getting equality be able making everyone happy? its about doing whats right, not what is easiest or what hurts the least!
HELL I know, lets call it a civil union, give nothing to make it worth while and watch those bitches line up to get.. erm, unioned up thinking they've obtained something when they haven't gotten shit.
Not that I have any interest in marriage mind you.. but, just found it all odd.
sdn8 saidAgree with Hobronto. The word marriage scares the bible thumping conservative biased Christians. Call it Civil Union and the dumb bastards wouldn't care.
Many or most of the already-established state constitutional amendments specifically prohibit "marriage-like" benefits. The wording varies wildly from state to state. In Georgia, that part was added into law with the vote supporting the marriage amendment, even though the wording was not included in the ballot presented at the polls.
fogos saidoh yes tyranny of the majority: used to favour racism bacause of the colour of the skin or race. sorry I don't "favour" the approval of straight people.
So does that put you in the "for" or "against" column? Cause you could make an argument either way.
I also think the word marriage drags too many negative connotations to the issue as many have said. I prefer union. It's so British.
The province of Quebec took an aspect of union further in 1974. When one gets "unionized" (that sounds weird) you donot have to take the same last name. You keep your own identity if you like.
hobronto saidCivil unions for one and all. My fear is that, by rustling up all this drama over marriage, we're shooting ourselves in the foot and not getting basic rights that we should be allowed. The word "marriage" is loaded with meaning for much of the populace and makes it more difficult to make progress in terms of obtaining equalish rights. Progress, not perfection.
I Agree Americans may hit a stump in their advancement forward with the term marriage. As many str8s may feel it will be detrimental to the institution of marriage, to be given to same sex couples, as it was not set up for that. It was and is all about a union between a man and a women, and not Adam and Steve.
In the State I live down in Oz. We have Civil Unions, It dose not come under the banner of marriage, as to use that term marriage would of stopped any progression, and the gays of this State, still may not of had Civil Unions, to declare their love for another. A ceremony I myself have little interest in; not until I can do it with both the men I am in a long term relationship. So my advancement is still Status Que. The new rights don't include I. But I'm not expecting the gay community to rally for I, as they have what they want.
But there are still many joys in being the only fag in the Village.
I agree with the opinion that "civil union" is a much more appropriate term for EVERYONE as far as government is concerned. When the Bill of Rights was written there was no such term so I really think marriage was used more out of default because there was no more applicable term at the time. Marriage is a religious thing and under separation of church and state, marriage in terms of the governments definition can only be interpreted in a legal sense. I say change the constitution to say "civil union" and have that apply to everyone to allow joint tax returns, visitation, etc., etc. and let the people who want to look at "marriage" as a man and woman thing, believe that within their own religions and keep it out of the law which is supposed to be strictly a legal definition of a choice of spouse!
Impossible? Most likely as long as the government continues to be influenced by religious sects on how to run the country instead of sticking to defining things in legal terms applying to everyone equally and keeping religion out of it!
Lets not forget America. I think you live in a democracy as I do. With this. The majority rules.
If the majority vote in your favor, you have it!
If they don't, you don't.
It's imposible to make everyone happy, and just because you want something, dose not mean you will or can have it.
We are all old enough now to know. There is no magic to the word please. You can say please all you want, still ant gonna guarantee you get what you ask for, or demand.
I guess maybe I should clarify that I think marriage is sort of stupid anyway. The people make the partnership, not a document. Getting married would be nice, but it wouldn't make @docmarvy and my relationship any more real or valid than it already is. Not that it's some sort of pissing match, but I'd hold the strength of our relationship up against most of the legally married people I know.
So, in the absence of feeling like I've got to prove anything to anybody, why would I care what it's called? Let the religious idiots keep their sacred institution. I want a few measly rights that basically just make our lives a little bit less complicated. There. Done.
.......as to use that term marriage would of stopped any progression, and the gays of this State, still may not of had Civil Unions, to declare their love for another. A ceremony I myself have little interest in; not...."until I can do it with BOTH the men I am in a long term relationship."
Pattison, this is the type of thing that gives us trouble. The opposition would have a field day with this....gays demanding the right to polygamy as a part of even civil unions. If you want to have a third party in your relationship, that's your business but that's not legal even for straights so as a policital/rights arguement.....I'd keep that to myself.
I'm happy being single - and have no wish to be married to anyone. I agree that those guys who want to be married should be allowed to marry. I read this morning about all the money the Mormon (LDS) church is spending and urging their flock to spend to fight gay marriage. What the Hell business is it of theirs?
The one word I have for anyone planning to get married: Prenuptial!
I personally couldn't give one damn about the religious connotations of the word 'marriage.' I will argue vehemently for the legalization of marriage, though, because some people do. Anything less than 'marriage' is an inequity, even if the legal definition is the same.
Pattison said But there are still many joys in being the only fag in the Village.
I think the correct term is: The Only Gay in the Village
Maybe for you, but not I
As One dose not stand under the banner of gay! I gave my gay card back at 25. Soon that will be 25 years ago. GLBT dose not represent One, as we are not all one, nor all the same. So why force us under the one banner, as you have just tried to do to I.
One gave back there gay membership. But when I accepted it, I really was way to young to know what I was doing. My str8mates may well be lesbians, as they like to have sex with women. But being a pure homosexual, One could never have sex with a women; plus it's against the rules to be bi. I am a pure homosexual. Thus not a bi. I was born with penis, a male, and will die this way. So why do people want to shove us all under the one banner, when we are not one, and from my experience working and parting in the gay community, we never have been.
NO I am the only fag in the village.
If One could find pride in the world pride. I may well of said I'm proud to be a fag. But pride is evil, a bad thing.
I'm all for equal rights for all groups. But usually gay men simply want it in order to have the legal benefits and breaks that marriage grants for heterosexuals. I think we should all be entitled to that regardless of sexual orientation. But then it's simply a goal to achieve in order to "save money" and have access to your partner's assets should he pass on.
For this reason it deflates the sanctity of marriage itself and is now more of a legal exploit to protect each other should one become seriously ill or die. This is really the only reason why gay men want to get married. Aside from this gay men want to reap these benefits yet while married want to have multiple sex partners during their married life.
How does this work well when a married gay couple that continues to indulge in a promiscuous lifestyle want to raise children? How will a gay couple's divorce be taken seriously (this will eventually be a reality for us just as it already is for straights) if it is public news that they've been promiscuous from the start to finish of their relationship? On what grounds will they get divorced by? What will prenuptial agreements contain when there are no boundaries? I'm curious.
Most gay men want the benefits of straights when it comes to marriage yet they audaciously dare to try and redefine what a union between two people should be. I'm not naive, I know there are straights that get married and continue still to live an openly promiscuous lifestyle. But "wife swappers" and the like are not the ones screaming from the roof tops about how they feel their lifestyle and choices should be accepted. They, for the most part, exercise a little discretion.
So I do believe that gays should be able to be married. But with the privilege of marriage comes responsibility and an expectation of conduct amongst married couples. It would be like someone demanding to have a driver's license and then whine they they are entitled to it yet denied because they want to run red lights, ignore stop signs and recreate the speed limit at any given moment. Or expecting to get a loan from a bank yet decide at your leisure when you make your monthly payments and decide how much you pay and disregard what the contract states.
Ambivalent or not, this is a democracy and as Pattison correctly stated, "majority rules". This is also a free country and despite how we might feel about the Mormon's "interfering" in the issue (i.e., why should they care?), they have every right as Americans to try to convince the "majority" that their position is correct. So even if you don't care about the issue in particular, you should care about whether or not EVERYONE should have a choice in the matter of being "married" or not and that meaning the same thing for everyone who choses to do so! Just like you personally may not believe in abortion but everyone woman should have the right to choose to have one safely if they want. Again, a legal right for everyone, not a religious belief imposed on everyone!
.......as to use that term marriage would of stopped any progression, and the gays of this State, still may not of had Civil Unions, to declare their love for another. A ceremony I myself have little interest in; not...."until I can do it with BOTH the men I am in a long term relationship."
Pattison, this is the type of thing that gives us trouble. The opposition would have a field day with this....gays demanding the right to polygamy as a part of even civil unions. If you want to have a third party in your relationship, that's your business but that's not legal even for straights so as a policital/rights arguement.....I'd keep that to myself.
What and hide my love for another. be ashamed of my love for another. Can't do it. Forgo all the trials and tribulations. I was to endure in the early years of establishing these now two long term relationships, and be open about it all.
So I speak out for all, and not just the gay community, there are members of the str8 community who would take advantage of it. it may even lead to a bi guy having his wife, and his man too.
Since the gays of my state have been given civil unions. A section of the Muslim committee down here has started to lobby for the right too polygamy. Gays have been given more rights, so we want more rights too.
Yet I am 6 generations born to Oz. My family come as Pioneers. Yet newcomers to this great southern land, get more rights than I do. A White indigenous Aussie. I am a long way from equal, yet alone extra rights. Even gay in this state get rights I don't.
No I will not pick on of my men, my heart is big enough to have room for more than one. I wear two rings, one for each of them.
hobronto saidI guess maybe I should clarify that I think marriage is sort of stupid anyway. The people make the partnership, not a document. Getting married would be nice, but it wouldn't make @docmarvy and my relationship any more real or valid than it already is. Not that it's some sort of pissing match, but I'd hold the strength of our relationship up against most of the legally married people I know.
So, in the absence of feeling like I've got to prove anything to anybody, why would I care what it's called? Let the religious idiots keep their sacred institution. I want a few measly rights that basically just make our lives a little bit less complicated. There. Done.
My personal issue in wanting the right to legally marry is not based on anyone telling me my "relationship" or "partnership" is any more real emotionally then a straight relationship.
My desire comes down to as basic as "We The People" including all being invited to that specific banquet. Legal Marriage 'technically" is a business partnership acknowledged by the government with specific rights and privileges to that legal partnership.
It is amazing as a hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizen, I am not given those extra special privileges based on my sexuality, but I might be able to get them if I play nice and go along with calling it a "civil union" Ask just one heterosexual approved by the government individual how they would feel being treated like this and they would be outraged. It would be mass hysteria from a bunch of spoiled brats.
In the process of being told I can't use that word I also have to hear that if I did get to sit at that same table and legally define my partnership with the same word Marriage that mysteriously all of a sudden polygamy, pedifilia and incestuous marriages will be allowed. I guess the majority who values the definition of Marriage strictly between a man and a woman don't statistically look at the fact that it's a heterosexual who wants all that shit.
Another grand insult to a heaping pile of insults willingly sloped on me because I had enough guts to come out of the closet and live my life accordingly while many of those same God loving men supporting Marriage strictly between a man and a woman on Saturday night go out for a carton of Milk and end up at some rest stop, bus station, park or airport bathroom on his knees sucking cock only to go back home to the wifey and collectively head to church on Sunday where he finds his God all over again until the next Saturday.
I'm suppose to believe in no way does this make me feel out of the loop by segregating me simply because the same country that embraces Freedom of Religion suddenly allows someone's religion to define the term Marriage. It's beyond insulting. The desire to cater to conservative America is over and done with. If "We The People" truly means each and every one of us then prove it. Otherwise erase it and stop teaching it because it's a lie with more then a few loopholes.
muchmorethanmuscle saidI'm all for equal rights for all groups. But usually gay men simply want it in order to have the legal benefits and breaks that marriage grants for heterosexuals. I think we should all be entitled to that regardless of sexual orientation. But then it's simply a goal to achieve in order to "save money" and have access to your partner's assets should he pass on.
For this reason it deflates the sanctity of marriage itself and is now more of a legal exploit to protect each other should one become seriously ill or die. This is really the only reason why gay men want to get married. Aside from this gay men want to reap these benefits yet while married want to have multiple sex partners during their married life.
How does this work well when a married gay couple that continues to indulge in a promiscuous lifestyle want to raise children? How will a gay couple's divorce be taken seriously (this will eventually be a reality for us just as it already is for straights) if it is public news that they've been promiscuous from the start to finish of their relationship? On what grounds will they get divorced by? What will prenuptial agreements contain when there are no boundaries? I'm curious.
Most gay men want the benefits of straights when it comes to marriage yet they audaciously dare to try and redefine what a union between two people should be. I'm not naive, I know there are straights that get married and continue still to live an openly promiscuous lifestyle. But "wife swappers" and the like are not the ones screaming from the roof tops about how they feel their lifestyle and choices should be accepted. They, for the most part, exercise a little discretion.
So I do believe that gays should be able to be married. But with the privilege of marriage comes responsibility and an expectation of conduct amongst married couples. It would be like someone demanding to have a driver's license and then whine they they are entitled to it yet denied because they want to run red lights, ignore stop signs and recreate the speed limit at any given moment. Or expecting to get a loan from a bank yet decide at your leisure when you make your monthly payments and decide how much you pay and disregard what the contract states.
There's nothing so attractive, of course, as lumping the intentions of all gay men together. Of course there will be some guys who marry for the wrong reasons and 'deflate the sanctity' of marriage. There are plenty of straight people who do, too. The matter of gay marriage is not so much one of morality and what marriage means and signifies, but of equality, as Jsttennis just said.
There's nothing so attractive, of course, as lumping the intentions of all gay men together. Of course there will be some guys who marry for the wrong reasons and 'deflate the sanctity' of marriage. There are plenty of straight people who do, too. The matter of gay marriage is not so much one of morality and what marriage means and signifies, but of equality, as Jsttennis just said.
Don't feel attacked by what I say. I have to say that the few couples I do know that either went to Canada to get married or are running to California to get married are all people that openly seek out other sex partners. So by what I've experienced it seems to be the general rule. I'd like to hear of and from more gay men that believe that marriage is something that involves monogamy. It seems that there are more monogamous gay men not interested in marriage then gay men that want to get married (yet play on the side). Just another observation of mine.
I already made mention that straight people are not perfect. Did you miss that in my post? If you want rights to your boyfriend's property and all the tax benefits then I suggest that one of you adopt the other. It can be done and I think it's a hell of a lot easier. And just think, if your partner dies before you, then you will receive his pension/social security if necessary. It's just as good if not better than getting married for the "legal" reasons.
I don't confuse morality with religious beliefs. But I do value trust, integrity and honesty. And the married gay couples that I do know of that like to whore it up with 'side dishes' and whatnot are not honest with each other. Marriage for them is an ever evolving situation based on hedonistic convenience.
The word marriage scares the bible thumping conservative biased Christians. Call it Civil Union and the dumb bastards wouldn't care.
Let them be scared! It doesn't make it right. We shouldn't have to call our marriage something else just to placate them. Freedom OF Religion also means Freedom FROM Religion, in a country where there's supposed to separation of Church and State. But, no, we do not live in an ideal world. I also feel calling "our" marriages "civil unions" is a case of separate but not equal, legally.
But, I'm also a pragmatist. It may take some time, decades possibly, for the Supreme Court to realize this and make the same judgment it did about the inequality of black people, the ability of mixed race couples to marry, etc.
I understand your point Eric. I can on speak to my country's Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court of Canada In essence it says that Parliament can decide if two persons have the right to marry-this was passed in the House of Commons and passed in the Senate to make it the Law.
Further then that religious groups have the right to marry who they pick and choose. ie only a man and a woman.
well in the end it seems it ended up protecting the rights of religious bodies constitutionally. Here's a link.
hobronto saidCivil unions for one and all. My fear is that, by rustling up all this drama over marriage, we're shooting ourselves in the foot and not getting basic rights that we should be allowed. The word "marriage" is loaded with meaning for much of the populace and makes it more difficult to make progress in terms of obtaining equalish rights. Progress, not perfection.
What and hide my love for another. be ashamed of my love for another. Can't do it. Forgo all the trials and tribulations. I was to endure in the early years of establishing these now two long term relationships, and be open about it all.
Nobody's asking you to be ashamed of your relationship. You do what makes you happy! I'm speaking purely from the responsibility of the government to be fair and equal in the treatment of all laws and matters of civil rights. I don't think the government would or should be obligated to extent partnership "equality" to multiple partners of one person (though you could argue the fairness of keeping one away from one partner and not the other in case of medical emergency, etc.), but I think that could be handled via living will or power of attorney vs. the government "blessing" polygamy for all! I mean if you did that what's to stop opportunistic people from taking advantage of the system by having multiple spouses just to qualify for spousal benefits in taxes, etc., just like we have those who take advantage of Social Security by collecting multiple checks through fraud or work the welfare system for all it's worth? I guess that's another issue entirely though!
If you are able to have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple, who cares what it's called... I think, equal rights is the issue. I think by now in Denmark, gay couples get the same rights as heterosexual couples. But yes, you'll have to make do with a (bland) civil ceremony at city hall. Still, over here it constitutes a real marriage. Lots of straight people here get married at city hall (because they're not religious) So for that reason, if I were straight, I wouldn't want to marry in a church though I had the right. On top of that, as a gay man I would never pursue the idea of getting married within a church or religion where the majority sees us an abomination.
There are so many weird christian sects about... so my suggestion to the Jesus loving gays is just to make their own sect/church. I mean, if the mormons could, why couldn't you "discover" the word of god on some other gold plates, only slightly more accepting towards alternative life styles
No matter what new avenues open up. We will always have opportunists, to take advantage of no matter what.
I was amazed while in Hawaii, on the big Island Hawaii. Places were people once had homes, had been lost the the volcano's. yet people are making the best out of this opportunity.
So since the boundaries are being stretched to have same sex relationships acknowledged. Why stop it there, why not be inclusive, and include all? Like me for one. So many people have said just here at RJ. Well if they want it let em have it. Suppose even they have boundaries to this philosophy, yet will not accept boundaries applied to them.
Oh I am very content with the way things are for me, even if I could wed my two long term relationships. I'm not saying I would use this. But at the same time. As a White indigenous Aussie. gay down here have rights I don't; so we are not one.
It would be nice to have equal rights as newcomers to Oz, to bring loved ones into Oz, from a fare away land, and have him here too. But it is the way it is, and I'm accepting of this. I'm not bitter about it at all.
I see Mormons mentioned here a lot, yet no other religion. Yet the Mormons are an American born religion. Yet your founding forefathers were also religious right wing. The Mormons have done a wonderful job of integrating into main stream America, considering you wanted to exterminate them all, and lord forbid if ever they got to be politicians, and law makers.
But it is a religion from a fare away land, that is your biggest opponent; Vatican City. The last Pope told the world. Any country who grants marriage to homosexuals, are deranged. Yet there are many gay catholics who want marriage, yet stand by this institution.
I have two long term relationships. I have written to the previous government about this and how new comers to Oz, and just Australians get rights I don't have, and now gays too. My government is well aware of this! As the Only fag in the Village. I speak for myself, and no-one else.
hobronto saidCivil unions for one and all. My fear is that, by rustling up all this drama over marriage, we're shooting ourselves in the foot and not getting basic rights that we should be allowed. The word "marriage" is loaded with meaning for much of the populace and makes it more difficult to make progress in terms of obtaining equalish rights. Progress, not perfection.
I couldn't agree more -- lose a few battles, but win the war.
I'm not sure I would call "separate but equal" type of institutions "winning the war." I'm not against civil unions as a first step but eventually we shouldn't need to use different words for the same things based solely on our sexual preference.
i'd love to have a big-ass wedding, surrounded by those i love the most. full ceremony, where we'd write our own vows. a huge party afterward, lots of dancing. and i'd want everyone to be hungover the next day because they had such a blast. then off to the honeymoon for me and my husband.
Straight marriage is disgusting. Every time see a guy and a girl kiss public I think gross another pussy impaler. I mean it's bad enough 95% of the population has this disease. The least they can do is contain it to privacy.
onejock saidi'd love to have a big-ass wedding, surrounded by those i love the most. full ceremony, where we'd write our own vows. a huge party afterward, lots of dancing. and i'd want everyone to be hungover the next day because they had such a blast. then off to the honeymoon for me and my husband.
What is stopping you? You can do all these things without a peace of paper, or to walk down an aisle.
Nothing is stopping you from doing these things, not even the government. Even if your Government said Ok, do it we support you. Now off down Under for our honeymoon. But we wont, and don't have to accept this union. You come as Mr Swords, and Mr Jones. If Oz said Ok Pattison you can have your two husbands. Would the USA welcome us with open arms, when Pattison and his two men arrive?
jakebenson saidStraight marriage is disgusting. Every time see a guy and a girl kiss public I think gross another pussy impaler. I mean it's bad enough 95% of the population has this disease. The least they can do is contain it to privacy.
Pattison said But they are the default setting, we are not.
Let's not give heterosexuality superiority just because our cultural has so blindly given some transcendental quality to the ability to procreate in a relationship.
I am not saying you are, I would just like to make it our goal to go out there and change 1 persons viewpoint on gays and straights.
Its the definition of marriage that would have me say, yes I am opposed to gay marriage, I completely believe marriage is a religious rite exclusive to heterosexual couples. Do I believe same-sex couples should enjoy all of the same tax, pension, healthcare benefits that hetero couples do? Yes I do. As with most issues gay men have a huge chip on their shoulder about being oppressed/victimized.
Get over it fellas, if you want to get married, find a nice girl. If you want to spend your life with the man you love, do it.
hardcanadian saidIts the definition of marriage that would have me say, yes I am opposed to gay marriage, I completely believe marriage is a religious rite exclusive to heterosexual couples. Do I believe same-sex couples should enjoy all of the same tax, pension, healthcare benefits that hetero couples do? Yes I do. As with most issues gay men have a huge chip on their shoulder about being oppressed/victimized.
Get over it fellas, if you want to get married, find a nice girl. If you want to spend your life with the man you love, do it.
thanks for the anthropology lesson and what you define as marriage. the chip on the shoulder remark is simply rubbish. The issue here is not about oppression or being victimized. Matthew Shepard was victimized. Murdered. At least have an idea of what the discussion is about.
Pattison said But they are the default setting, we are not.
Let's not give heterosexuality superiority just because our cultural has so blindly given some transcendental quality to the ability to procreate in a relationship.
I am not saying you are, I would just like to make it our goal to go out there and change 1 persons viewpoint on gays and straights.
Well then I've more than reached my goal.
I live in the str8 world. Yet not as a str8, or in the closet. As myself. I have had, and still have a number of mates who don't trust homosexuals, Ben because he has had em hit on him from a young age. If you seen him you would know why. I also seen him naked, his manhood is very impressive. The trust he has in me. He will undress in the same room as I.
I have a number of str8 mates who don't like and trust gays. Yet I am OK. Their words. I'm not like them, and to a point, they are right. Or they try to tell me I'm really Bisexual, lol.
So I do change peoples minds, just for being me. I do my best to lead by example. But then many are amazed I call myself a fag, and non of them will; go figure? And RJ is the only gay community. I am involved with, since it's the net, and in America. It dose not count.
The word marriage scares the bible thumping conservative biased Christians. Call it Civil Union and the dumb bastards wouldn't care.
Unfortunately, that is not true. They don't want gay people having those either. Basically, they want gay people to go away because they view homosexuality as a disease.
An interesting case over what to call a union of two people of the same sex came up a few years ago. A British university professor had been on secondment to a university of Vancouver, and had married her longterm partner. By the time they moved back to the UK, the Civil Partnership law had been passed. But they said, no--we don't have a civil partnership, this ceremony was performed in British Columbia and we have a marriage certificate. We have a marriage.
Given how anti religious alot of gays are and the connection "marriage" has with religion, I don't see why calling it a civil union would be such a terrible thing? Especially if it still allows the couple the same benefits.
Given how anti religious many heterosexuals are and the connection "marriage" has with religion, heterosexual couples who are not affiliated with any Church should have their marriages voided and changed to Civil Unions.
The problem here in the US is; too often in most states marriage and civil unions are the same thing. It has a religious/social aspect and a legal aspect. We haven't done a very good job of separating church from state here on this issue.
I like the way they do it in France, all marriages are civil unions first but not all civil unions are marriages. Couples get a civil union, then if they're religiously inclined they can also get a marriage afterwards. Legally and socially, the civil union provides the important bond, not the marriage.
My partner and I had our marriage ceremony at the town hall here in Torremolinos, Spain after being together in a monogamous relationship for 15 and one half years. We did not just stand in front of a counter and raise our right hands but were married in a beautiful setting exclusively set-up to marry couples. Our witnesses sat next to us while the Vice Mayor presided over the ceremony and we had a room full of quests, both straight and gay. Now we enjoy all the legal rights of a straight married couple. If we so choose, we could adopt children. After our ceremony in the town hall we all walked to a restaurant in downtown and partied the night away.
The most important thing about our ability to get married however is not the legal ramifications nor is it our ability to have our union respected. For us it was more about dignity. I did not think about this at all before we got married. The feeling of dignity never occurred to me until we went home after our party and we stayed up most of rest of the night talking about how wonderful the ceremony and party was. We also talked a lot that night about how we felt. To finally live in a place where we could feel as equals to our straight friends gave us that feeling of dignity.
Keep fighting for your full and equal rights under the law. Do not ever give up because at the end of that hard and difficult road is dignity and that feeling is worth the struggle.
eyland saidGiven how anti religious many heterosexuals are and the connection "marriage" has with religion, heterosexual couples who are not affiliated with any Church should have their marriages voided and changed to Civil Unions.
Why it's an institution made for heterosexuals, by religion. Str8s have just started to come out of the dark ages from religion, and you are not deemed evil, by some religions for not going to church every Sunday, and 2 or 3 times during the week. They normally are persuaded to sign something to say their Children wit be christened catholic thou. So it's not just the gays who suffer, and who have suffered. The str8s have too. OMG, over all the gays have had many more freedoms than the str8s. They still haven;t taken full advantage of the sexual revolution, as the gays did long ago. They have had the binds of marriage forced on them still. Gosh I think of all the freedoms I've had, that my str8 mates never have. Oh a gay bathhouse down here opens one evening a month, for the str8s, and I suppose bis too.
The gay community is a long way from being pure, and perfect! The gay community is not the same as the str8 community, and is a very long way from being so, if ever. Civil Unions is the way, not marriage. Yet gays down here are able to be publicly united with the one they love. I still am not, as I have two. So Now not only do newcomers to Oz, and new Australians, have rights in Oz I don't. Now so do the gays, as they can be united with their loved one. Yet I have two, and no provisions have been made for us.
Bite like Russia. The constitution said men and women are equal, yet never said anything provisions for the homosexuals. No separate provision was made for them.
hardcanadian saidIts the definition of marriage that would have me say, yes I am opposed to gay marriage, I completely believe marriage is a religious rite exclusive to heterosexual couples. Do I believe same-sex couples should enjoy all of the same tax, pension, healthcare benefits that hetero couples do? Yes I do. As with most issues gay men have a huge chip on their shoulder about being oppressed/victimized.
Get over it fellas, if you want to get married, find a nice girl. If you want to spend your life with the man you love, do it.
thanks for the anthropology lesson and what you define as marriage. the chip on the shoulder remark is simply rubbish. The issue here is not about oppression or being victimized. Matthew Shepard was victimized. Murdered. At least have an idea of what the discussion is about.
MAYBE I SHOULD WRITE IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN READ IT SLOWLY. THE FORUM TITLE IS GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. MY RESPONSE IS SPECIFIC TO THAT AND THE FOLLOW UP OF "...does anybody on here who is actually gay, oppose same-sex marriage? " AT LEAST HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING. BTW, WTF DOES YOUR RESPONSE HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS FORUM? IS THAT YOUR CHIP SHOWING?
luc21_83 saidTo the christian community that apposes gay marriage, I say this: God will be at my wedding too, whether you like it or not.
Which is totally remarkable as gay weddings have been happening at churches for years. Churches that do it, do it. Churches that do not, don't. The army isn't going to storm the vatican and force the pope at gun point to bless any of these unions. It is all about civil rights.
GHA! The whole situation makes me want to scream in frustration.
jsttennis77 saidI want, deserve, have earned and demand every right given to a straight person. That includes the right to legally Marry.
Man, you are my hero! I totally agree...! I have a hard time seeing this as more than a human rights issues.... and guess what? Our Human Rights are being Pissed On. I still can't grasp the fact that if I buy some rings, walk down the isle, say 'I Do", and mean it,,, that my, till death do us part will not earn me that same rights as me parents.
OR- as mentioned above by another poster... We ALL have Civil Unions... EQUAL RIGHTS PEOPLE... WE HAVE EARNED THEM THE DAY WE WERE BORN A PERSON NOT TO BE USHERED TO THE BACK OF THE BUSS... ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL,,, unless of course you have great fashion sense...
Jockbod48 saidI'm happy being single - and have no wish to be married to anyone. I agree that those guys who want to be married should be allowed to marry. I read this morning about all the money the Mormon (LDS) church is spending and urging their flock to spend to fight gay marriage. What the Hell business is it of theirs?
The one word I have for anyone planning to get married: Prenuptial!
Hummm, Prenuptial huh? Interesting.. How about you make sure that one you marry is the right one to begin with....I have mixed emotions around the P word... Gold digger I'm not, I have my own coin,,, till death do us part has a better ring to it...
Again, I'd rather shop till I found the right guy. I plan to leave whatever my spouse and I earn to him if I were to go first.. That said, I am cool with separate checking accounts. I would want the same in a will to protect my future... Even if I was to marry a pauper. I marry for love and never money... If there is love and money, not really any happier, you're just more financially secure...
Jockbod48 saidI'm happy being single - and have no wish to be married to anyone. I agree that those guys who want to be married should be allowed to marry. I read this morning about all the money the Mormon (LDS) church is spending and urging their flock to spend to fight gay marriage. What the Hell business is it of theirs?
The one word I have for anyone planning to get married: Prenuptial!
Uh, its their right to organize and oppose any legislation they believe to be unjust, just as its your right to do the same. The LDS Church is doing what they think is best for their members and society in general. If they have the money and resources to dedicate its their choice to do so. If it was a privately funded campaign to preserve or expand legislation for gay marriage you would be all for it, right? I assume you want equality, which means for all, yet when another group organizes to challenge what benefits an extremely small subset of society that you belong too, you get pissed?
After reading some of the responses here, we're very grateful we live in Canada.
There are thousands of non-religious marriages every year. All straight. Now we have several thousand gay marriages, most of them non-religious, to add to the mix.
Civil marriage - unsanctified. Religious marriage - sanctified.
See, everyone's happy.
For those saying the majority rules in a democracy on every occasion, just think about the physically handicapped - way less of them than the majority, but if the majority tried to deny them healthcare, what do you imagine would happen?
We notice Pattison saying that marriage is only for the religious, but doesn't explain all the non-religious straight marriages all over the world. We also notice that he calls his two partners 'husbands'.
Pattison saidLets not forget America. I think you live in a democracy as I do. With this. The majority rules.
If the majority vote in your favor, you have it!
If they don't, you don't.
It's imposible to make everyone happy, and just because you want something, dose not mean you will or can have it.
We are all old enough now to know. There is no magic to the word please. You can say please all you want, still ant gonna guarantee you get what you ask for, or demand.
Yeah, we like to call it that but it is actually a republic. The odd and interesting thing about our government is the Supreme Court's leeway in interpreting the Constitution's actul meaning as it applies to modern society. We have constructionists, which are the conservatives' people of choice because they are essentially the religious fundamentalists of constitutional law. They attempt not to read in more meaning than what is literally written in the original document. More progressive judges interpret the document in terms of how the meaning might have been intended to apply in modern terms. The Supreme Court is essentially above and beyond majority rule and intended as a check against the whims of our (average IQ of 99) populace.
Jockbod48 saidI'm happy being single - and have no wish to be married to anyone. I agree that those guys who want to be married should be allowed to marry. I read this morning about all the money the Mormon (LDS) church is spending and urging their flock to spend to fight gay marriage. What the Hell business is it of theirs?
The one word I have for anyone planning to get married: Prenuptial!
Uh, its their right to organize and oppose any legislation they believe to be unjust, just as its your right to do the same. The LDS Church is doing what they think is best for their members and society in general. If they have the money and resources to dedicate its their choice to do so. If it was a privately funded campaign to preserve or expand legislation for gay marriage you would be all for it, right? I assume you want equality, which means for all, yet when another group organizes to challenge what benefits an extremely small subset of society that you belong too, you get pissed?
This makes no fucking sense.
So if a conservative group wants to dedicate their resourses to legislation allowing towns to lynch blacks and jews, that just fine? Yeah! Why not? Their private citizens! Its their money!
This why capitalism and libertarianism loses in the end. Its violates common sense.
So...having been in a committed and monogomous relationship for 12+ years now, here is my 2 cents...
Neither I, nor my partner, have any interest in getting "married", however we do feel that as human beings we are entitled to the same rights as any other whether they be heterosexual or not.
Furthermore, neither of us find it necessary to screw around on each other. I tend to subscribe to the belief that if you want to screw around then you are not committed.
I've never understood, personally, why anyone would betroth or commit themselves to another person if they aren't ready and willing to end their promiscuity.
I certainly would not want to have sex with my partner who is out also having sex with anyone/everyone he wants to have sex with. Committment is a lot about restraint and respect - to me anyway.
Now, that being said, in the past we have been presented with several opportunities to have 3-ways and engage is "group activities". Although we never have chosen to participate, I don't think there would be any issues if TOGETHER we decided to partake.
A) "Separation of Church and State" is no where in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It actually kind of saddens me to see so many of my fellow Americans keep saying this. Separation of Church and State is a concept and the term was widely used by Jefferson and Madison (as well as many other people dating back to the Ancient Rome). There are points in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that uphold this concept, but the term is never there. Jefferson even wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which further enforces this concept but again, the term is never actually used.
B) A point that was mention in one of the first replies... Yes, many American's believe allowing gays the right to a civil union will cause the fall of the country. The breadth and power behind the Christian Right is very large in the US and I think even larger than most American's really believe that it is. Take a close look at polls behind the reasons that most people follow the Republican party (which is totally ass backwards now if you look at the roots of the party) and you'll see that gay rights is really high on that list. Then look at how neck-and-neck the Republican vs. Democratic race is and you'll see it a little more clearly.
C) "Marriage" is a religious institution. It should be up to a religious organization to decide if gays should be allowed to marry into their beliefs behind that institution. I think it's pretty simple to follow that if the American government is going to recognize a "marriage" then it should have something in place for people that are not religious but wish to join in a "civil union".
D) I'd have to disagree with the comments that most gay Americans want marriage for the financial benefits. I believe it's more of a status icon than before the financial reasons. I would hope the #1 reason would still be the fact that you have so many legal benefits - such as being able to see a sick or injured partner in hospital. But that's an entirely different conversation.
BTChicagoGuy saidHere's a few things I felt should be thrown in.
A) "Separation of Church and State" is no where in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It actually kind of saddens me to see so many of my fellow Americans keep saying this. Separation of Church and State is a concept and the term was widely used by Jefferson and Madison (as well as many other people dating back to the Ancient Rome). There are points in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that uphold this concept, but the term is never there. Jefferson even wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which further enforces this concept but again, the term is never actually used.
C) "Marriage" is a religious institution. It should be up to a religious organization to decide if gays should be allowed to marry into their beliefs behind that institution. I think it's pretty simple to follow that if the American government is going to recognize a "marriage" then it should have something in place for people that are not religious but wish to join in a "civil union".
D) I'd have to disagree with the comments that most gay Americans want marriage for the financial benefits. I believe it's more of a status icon than before the financial reasons. I would hope the #1 reason would still be the fact that you have so many legal benefits - such as being able to see a sick or injured partner in hospital. But that's an entirely different conversation.
Separation of church of state was the explanation used by some of the Founders to explain the Establishment of Religion clause, which is a part of the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison believed that if the state even attempted to use religious reasoning for law, it was a slippery slope toward a theocracy. They believed in a "wall of separation" that would ensure that such a state would never take shape. Many legal thinkers and politicans have used the term for much of our history, and the use of the "separation" argument is very valid, even if it is not an actual part of our Constitution.
Marriage is not just a religious instituion. It is also a legal institution, referred to as "civil marriage." This why there are laws against polygamy, or marrying your sister, and laws that deal with divorce or legal separation. At one point in this country there were laws against interracial marriages. The state has always reserved a certain right to decide who to incentivize marriage for. Usually, that purpose is for the creation of a family unit.
So really, it is not all that simple. Because we're talking about two different instiutions (one religious, one social/legal), the rules should certainly be different for each. I believe in equal rights, so of course, I believe in same-sex MARRIAGE. Although, I will take whatever is attainable for the time being.
Jockbod48 saidI'm happy being single - and have no wish to be married to anyone. I agree that those guys who want to be married should be allowed to marry. I read this morning about all the money the Mormon (LDS) church is spending and urging their flock to spend to fight gay marriage. What the Hell business is it of theirs?
The one word I have for anyone planning to get married: Prenuptial!
Uh, its their right to organize and oppose any legislation they believe to be unjust, just as its your right to do the same. The LDS Church is doing what they think is best for their members and society in general. If they have the money and resources to dedicate its their choice to do so. If it was a privately funded campaign to preserve or expand legislation for gay marriage you would be all for it, right? I assume you want equality, which means for all, yet when another group organizes to challenge what benefits an extremely small subset of society that you belong too, you get pissed?
This makes no fucking sense.
So if a conservative group wants to dedicate their resourses to legislation allowing towns to lynch blacks and jews, that just fine? Yeah! Why not? Their private citizens! Its their money!
This why capitalism and libertarianism loses in the end. Its violates common sense.
Lets try sticking to "apples to apples", marriage is a right available to all of us, unfortunately the legal definition in most jurisdcitions precludes same sex couples from marrying. However, we fundamentally have the right to marry as currently defined by both Church and State if we marry someone of the opposite sex. If straight friends wanted to marry for tax benefit or some other reason they would also be denied. The law applies to all, gay same-sex cant marry, straight same-sex cant marry. Any man, can marry, any women. See how that works?
As in my original post, gay men have chips on their shoulder and only look at what they perceive as injustice toward them. Thanks for supporting that idea.
Your parallel to killing people not only shows your ignorance for the discussion at hand, but a complete disregard for those groups mentioned.
So only free speech for those you perceive as deserving it? Monied conservatives get to just sit back and watch what they passionately believe is the unravellling of society??
hobronto saidCivil unions for one and all. My fear is that, by rustling up all this drama over marriage, we're shooting ourselves in the foot and not getting basic rights that we should be allowed. The word "marriage" is loaded with meaning for much of the populace and makes it more difficult to make progress in terms of obtaining equalish rights. Progress, not perfection.
Agree. A hundred years ago, when I was a kid in the 1970s, all the twenty-something straight kids were saying that "a marriage license was just a piece of paper". Boy, have times changed! "Marriage" is a loaded word; let's all (including str8s) get civil unions, and let the churches decide if they'll marry us.
I am sick and damned tired of these narrow-minded, bible thumping assholes forcing their primative, backward views on marriage. Gays and lesbians have just as much legitimate right to get married as straights do. I am so happy that the state supreme court in Connecticut threw out that state's civil union law and ordered the State of Connecticut to allow and legally recognize gay marriages equally with traditional straight marriages. The current GOP governor of Connecticut expressed her nonsensical opposition to the state court's ruling and threw a hissy fit on how she opposes gay marriage and that civil unions are adequate enough for gays. Now it is three states that have gay marriage unless voters in California allow themselves to be brainwashed into supporting that horrendous anti-gay marriage proposition 8. Lets hope that proposition 8 gets soundly rejected by California voters and those ignorant fundamentalists are told to go fuck themselves.
If straight friends wanted to marry for tax benefit or some other reason they would also be denied. The law applies to all, gay same-sex cant marry, straight same sex cant marry. Any man, can marry, any women. See how that works? .
You wrote, "If straight friends wanted to marry for tax benefit or some other reason they would also be denied."
Do you live in the real world?
You wrote, "straight same sex cant marry"
Straight same sex, hmmm, I think you are a lot confused!!!!!
We looked at "straight same sex cant marry" from hardcanadian's post and we think he means that two straight guys can't marry each other.
But, hardcanadian, they can. Any two straight men or women can pose as gay and get married, but why would they want to? Imagine how much trust you need to marry another, as they can turn about and take you to the cleaners with an acrimonious divorce, among other horrors. For example, how many straight men or women would date another that used to be in a same-sex marriage?
Another thought for you: How many straight people over the centuries have in engaged in "marriage-of-convenience"s? Too many to count.
We looked at "straight same sex cant marry" from hardcanadian's post and we think he means that two straight guys can't marry each other.
But, hardcanadian, they can. Any two straight men or women can pose as gay and get married, but why would they want to? Imagine how much trust you need to marry another, as they can turn about and take you to the cleaners with an acrimonious divorce, among other horrors. For example, how many straight men or women would date another that used to be in a same-sex marriage?
Another thought for you: How many straight people over the centuries have in engaged in "marriage-of-convenience"s? Too many to count.
My points are:
1) We all enjoy the same protections as US Citizens 2) You are correct when you interpret "straight same-sex" as two straight guys. 3) I am looking at this as purely the legal interpretation of who can marry, and that in fact we all can marry, if we fit our specific jurisdictions definition of marriage.
I suppose in general I am saying that gays are trying to fit a mold that was created 100s of years ago, marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman as instituted by various religous bodies. Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, whatever, can be defined as a specific legislative body chooses to. Why the hang-up on being "married"? If you are afforded the same rights to benefits, taxes etc... who cares what its called?
I guess my tongue-in-cheek approach is lost on those over 100?
