Gay Marriage?

[harpo]

Poll question: Gay Marriage?

[Vincardog]

Yes no restrictions that is the point of equal rights,, get it?

[tuvor]

1. Who voted "civil union's good enough"?

Are some people more equal than others?

[harpo]

4. hence the reason I like polls...anonymity rules!

[tuvor]

13. I agree. I don't really care who believes it.

Just a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that anyone CAN believe it.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[mondo joe]

24. Do we have a problem with the idea of a secret ballot as well?

I don't like to see that answer anny more than you do, but there is a pretty significant principle at play.

[cboy4]

28. It's not a real vote. It's an opinion. Isn't this a forum of opinions?

I don't get it why people who are in the minority on this thread of not wanting gay people to get married, do not want to explain to the rest of us why.

What's so difficult?


edit: spelling

[mondo joe]

29. But isn't the principle similar? And if you WANT to know what opinions

are - which I take to be the purpose of a poll - wouldn't you want to let them be anonymous so they'll be honest?

Now I'm all for marriage rights, and I don't think much of those oppposed, but an aggressive calling out isn't likely to lead to muchh of a dialogue.

[cboy4]

31. Please don't accuse me of aggressively calling anyone out. I'm doing

no such thing.

How can I honestly care what people think, if they don't explain why they feel that way? How am I ever able to understand?

I personally happen to think people who hide behind polls, regarding issues that are mean and hurtful toward minorities, are weak.

I'm sorry we disagree.

[mondo joe]

40. Yeah, calling people cowards isn't aggressive.

:eyes:

[harpo]

49. lol...that's what I was thinking too

[BlooInBloo]

54. Wow. Just can't WAIT to get your bloodthirsty righteously...

... indignant hands on the person can you?

[cboy4]

61. Couldn't wait to provoke me, could you?

If asking for the same rights as straight people makes me bloodthirsty or righteously indignant in your obvious embarrassingly insensitive, shameful feelings toward gay people who take enough

abuse from the right wing conservative christian republicans, then fine.

I don't think explaining one's views on DU is gunna kill anyone. That's what this place is all about. It's not about hiding behind polls like a bunch of weaklings.

[BlooInBloo]

62. ROFL! My shameful feelings towards gay people!

That's rich.

[cboy4]

64. Not rich. But it's pathetic!

[BlooInBloo]

63. Gah - dupe - self-delete

[mondo joe]

67. Tell you what, you are no more gay than I am, and I've been waiting for 16

years to get married, and I am really fucking steamed that I wasn't married by 40 because now I'm going to be wrinkly and fat in my damn photos.

But if you start by calling people cowards and weakling you aren't going to get anywhere.

[cboy4]

68. Mondo Joe, listen. If you're so "fucking steamed," then why do you just

sit back and let these people get away with voting it's against nature or whatever without condemning them or at least questioning them as to why they feel that way, and then try to educate them?

You don't have to use my language if you don't want, but you said NOTHING. Correct?

I may not get anywhere with people by calling them cowards or weaklings, but you're going to get just as "nowhere" by remaining silent.

Lets hope you don't have to wait another 16 years. I hope you don't.

[mondo joe]

69. Let them get away with it? Condemning them is pointless. Try

a more useful dialogue.

And accept that some people aren't going to see things your way.

Incidentally, I'm not silent - never have been. I'm totally out where ever I am.

[cboy4]

71. I will forever refuse to accept people being opposed to civil rights.

Politics, sports, movie awards, global warming, abortion, the death penalty, gun control etc., ......all issues I can accept people not seeing things my way.

But not civil rights.

So, we'll just end it here by agreeing to disagree I guess.

[Finder]

38. I think most of us are posting our opinions...

even if in the minority...

[cboy4]

43. Actually, no. Read all of the posts up to now and certainly

"most" in the minority are not posting their opinions.

They're clicking and running.

[Finder]

44. I usually click and run if I am in the majority...

but when in the minority, I like to engage in the debate/discussion. Of course if it is flamebait I try to avoid. Not as a coward, mind you, but out of a sense of self-preservation.lol

[cboy4]

47. Thank you for making me laugh...

None of my, uh "remarks" have been directed toward you :pals:

[aikoaiko]

56. I think gov't should only be in the business of civil unions.

for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and leave marriages to religious entities or whatever.

Still I voted no restrictions because thats closer to what I think.

[LeaveIraqNow]

75. Everyone can marry the opposite sex, how is that not equal?

I agree that same sex couples should get the same rights granted from marriage but it needs ot be its own thing sine a same sex couple is not the same thing as an opposite sex couple. Same rights different name, thats all.

[Touchdown]

2. Is there something in Texas water...

that makes this a debateable issue there, and a monkey see and do distraction everywhere else?:P

[panader0]

3. I've been married and divorced 3 times.

Do I still get a vote? I knew a fundie who told me I was still actually married to my first wife. I said you marry her. Who cares? It didn't work for me.

[terrya]

5. Same-sex marriage will only strengthen the institution of marriage.

Period. This is simply a no-brainer, frankly.

[Finder]

6. What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?

Aren't all marriages civil unions?

[theHandpuppet]

32. That is a legitimate question

And I believe many folks are confused about the legal differences between the two. Here is an outline, courtesy of GLAAD. You can read more about marriage equality and civil unions at their website, www.glad.org

What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings
with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal
parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that
you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other's side. It represents the
ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No
other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000. It provides legal protection to
couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and
power of the word "marriage."

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?
Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the
two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect
across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in
Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil
unions themselves.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in
Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have
no way to terminate their legal commitment.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a
family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a
federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex
couples? Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples?
Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages.
Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal
programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does
not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term a "marriage" rather than a "civil union" ?is an
essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination
against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.

Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in principle.
First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and
lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel
freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.
Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from
those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated
with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly
minted "civil unions."?

Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry
(rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their
local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair.
Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue
discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken
discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go
back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we
will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil
marriage.

[Misunderestimator]

51. Anyone voting Civil Unions are ok... PLEASE READ THIS POST ABOVE.

Then decide whether you really think civil unions are ok.

[Finder]

60. Agree, the information is important...

and how the hell can a State disrespect a contract? I personally do not believe any law(federal or state)should be gender specific or include any language regarding gender.

[saltpoint]

7. Hi, harpo. I voted your last selection, 'no restriction' marriage for

everybody.

I would only say that for anyone choosing to marry, straight, bi, gay, transgender, you name it, that the next Congress enact stepwise legislative initiatives to support the institution of marriage, no matter who is IN the marriage.

Less money for illegal assaults on sovereign nations and more money for education for the children of any and all marriages.

Less money for detention of "enemy combatants" in overseas torture chambers and more cash for health care for all Ameicans, including married anybodies, and especially including the elderly.

And so on.

Marriage should be a reachable, viable choice for all, without prohibitions based on xenophobic bullshit and political posturing, and the social institutions that enhance the quality of life should be more generously funded so that marriage for all can thrive with significantly fewer stresspoints.

[MrSlayer]

8. Equal rights are equal rights.

Absolutely yes on gay marriage.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. Gays should have the same right to fall asleep to Jay Leno as straights

:)

[racaulk]

10. No restrictions. None.

This should be a non-issue. My rights are not subject to the whims of the majority.

[VelmaD]

11. How about no marriage for anyone...

at least no marriage sanctioned by the government.

What you and your partner or partners want to do within your own faith community...I don't care. But I don't think government should be involved at all. Period.

[harpo]

15. now there is a deep thought to ponder..hmmm

[Finder]

33. That is where I am on the issue.

Legal Civil unions should be available to all with no race, gender restrictions. Marriage ceremonies, whether christian, pagan, jewish etc.,should be conducted in the churches, temples, forests etc...

[sierrajim]

55. That sounds a bit like what David Koresh did.

Remember the Branch Davidians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

[recoveringrepublican]

65. I wish, but too many women (and a couple men) would get screwed

unless we can set it up in a way that someone who supported the sole breadwinner (taking care of the children, household, millions of errands, etc) doesn't get hurt when the breadwinner walks away or dies. I stayed home for years, and even with the job I have now I have no 401K/pension, shitty health coverage compared to my husbands.

Is their a way to "incorporate" relationships? I know many sibling/parents/children/friends who lived with and later took care of another, why shouldn't they be entitled to soc sec bennies and be able to be placed on health insurance (actually lets get rid of insurance companies and this point could be moot also)?

[DanCa]

12. No restrictions gays should marry whmoever they want to.!

I can't believe that this is even in issue in this century.

[Mass]

14. I voted for the last option, but are we fighting for rights or for a word?

I would be just as fine with civil unions for all couples and the churches calling the weddings they perform the way they want. In fact, I would be better. The govt should not be involved in deciding who is married or not, period.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Well, I voted 'no restrictions' for lack of my true sentiments

which are basically opposed to marriage of all stripes, gay, straight, multiple, whatever.

Seriously, I think the government should only approve civil unions for all couples -- calling it 'marriage' invokes (to coin a phrase) a religious dimension to it, and the government should have no say on religous matters. If you want to be legally married, get your civil union, and then find a chuch to marry you as well. But keep marriage, and religion, out of government.

I've been mulling this over for years, since I worked in a county clerk's office and witnessed for several unions, where the judge, paid by my tax dollars, was saying "what God has joined together let no man put asunder". The judge was a nice guy, but he sure as hell wasn't god.

[cboy4]

17. How about a choice of: "Yes, and why is it really, truly (with all due

respect) anyone's business who I marry? Is all of America going to be required to send a wedding gift or chip in for the cost of the reception?"

Now that's a good poll question. I realize it might not fit on the line, but it's damn good. ;)

[bigwillq]

18. No restrictions.

I fully support equal rights for all people.

[maveric]

19. Chris Rock: "Gay people have the right to be miserable like everyone else"

No restrictions.

[harpo]

20. I remember him saying that...lol

[cboy4]

21. Why don't any of you people who voted civil unions are enough

show your faces and explain why with a post?

As for the person who voted it's against nature....you make me sick. Thanks a lot "fellow DU'er" :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Finder]

45. I did but...

I think all marriages should be legal civil unions. The term marriage should be the religious/sacramental/cultural ceremony of the couple's choice.

[cboy4]

53. Finder, I'm cool with your idea, but here's the reason why

as things stand right now, gay people are so united regarding getting married versus entering into a civil union, and why I get so irritated with people who are opposed to this:

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, MARRIAGE brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a
family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. CIVIL UNIONS BRING
NONE of these critical legal protections.

[Finder]

59. That is where we need to focus legistlation, IMO

The post above with a link to GLADD is interesting. I do know some companies are providing health insurance to SOs as well as provide leave but not all.

Of course if I had to, I would vote no restrictions, but I think the discussion/debate is an important one.

[Xeric]

72. I agree

I'm with you cboy4. I'm kind of surprised at the 15% who voted no and also had nothing to say about it. Perhaps they are (rightfully) ashamed for voting that way. I don't know. But I wasn't expecting that on DU. For someone on DU to say gay people shouldn't have equal rights or be allowed to adopt or are "against nature"(which I find remarkably ignorant) saddens me.

[Burma Jones]

22. I believe marriage is a religious construct

and civil unions are a civil construct, If a certain religion does not want to grant same sex couples the privilege of marriage within their own sect, that's their own business, I don't care, it's like only Catholics can get communion from a Catholic etc.

You have to go and get a Marriage license from the civil authorities. I think any two consenting adults should be able to enter that contractual relationship.

I would be comfortable calling the civil license you have to obtain a license for a civil union and if whatever religion you wish to follow wants to give you a marriage certificate, that's their own business, but it should make no difference to how you are treated by the Government.

My wife and I have a Marriage License from the Town of New Castle, NY and a Ketubah from the Rabbi - since he's Reform, I didn't have to convert. But, other Rabbis and other religions refuse to marry people of different faiths..... My wife and I would not be recognized as married by some religions, but why should I give a shit because I have obtained a license from the civil authorities that says we have entered a civil union that happens to be called marriage....

On edit: If you go get married in a religion that recognizes same sex unions, then you're Married in my book, and there are religions that do accommodate that. BUT, civil unions should be enough for ALL of us, Understand?

[More Than A Feeling]

25. Churches can choose not to perform marriage ceremonies for gays

if they wish, but the state, from whom all legal rights and benefits of marriage flow, must allow gays to marry with the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals.

[HockeyMom]

34. They already do that

Catholic church will not marry someone who is divorced. Government doesn't force them to.

[KAZ]

26. 81% yes!

I love this forum!

[Solly Mack]

27. You asking? :o)

I support equal rights - so naturally that includes equal protection under the law...and if the law allows for straights to get married - and it does - then equal protection under the law demands that the GLBT community also has the right to marry.


I don't want special rights - just equal rights.

[HockeyMom]

30. Call all LICENSES (contracts) issued by the state

Civil Unions, for straights and for gays. Leave the sacred, holy "institution" (sic) of marriage for the churches/temples/mosques/etc. for those who choose that.

Government has no right to define what my marriage between myself and my husband, or your marriage between you and your partner should be. WE, the couple involved, do that.

[Finder]

35. Makes sense. n/t

[mondo joe]

41. Bravo! Excellent. -eom-

[Lugnut]

36. No restrictions

Equal means equal. Period.

[Totally Committed]

37. It's a human and civil rights question, pure and simple...

Gays should be allowed to marry, divorce, adopt -- whatever with absolutely no restrictions. Any less would be legislating inequality in America. That's a slippery slope... who's next?

TC

[YouthInAsia]

39. Whats the big deal with gay marriage? WHo the hell cares?

Who's it hutrtin? YOU? Not. Unless you can explain to me how two people getting married negatively affects YOU, then you have no case.

[NJ Democrats]

42. Yes, no restrictions.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

46. Anyone who wishes to marry should be allowed to w/o restrictions

It's not some sacred club that only a few can join. It's a union of two people who love each other enough to want to make it forever.

Who said, "Sure let gays marry, why shouldn't they suffer right along with the rest of us?"

[helderheid]

48. No: Other - Marriage should be conducted in a church - Civil Unions for

ALL people, gay or straight. This is how it is in the Netherlands. You want a Church ceremony? Fine but that has nothing to do with the government. To be legally bound together, you must have a civil union.

[Misunderestimator]

50. Nice... 13 votes for second class citizenship.

Lovely. :banghead:

[terrya]

66. That's unfortunate enough, but...

there's 4 votes for that "marriage is solely between a man and a woman" shit.

[Misunderestimator]

74. Well, I kinda figure 4 trolls is about right. 13... that would suck.

On edit... I guess it's 17 now. Very unfortunate.

[Touchdown]

52. Stephen Colbert's take...

I got married to my wife simply because gays can't. Why would I do it if they can? To me, Marriage is just one big gay taunt!

[annabanana]

57. other: The government should get completely OUT of the

"Marriage" business...

ALL state issued "marriage licenses" should be "civil union certificates"

and only religious institutions should be in the "Marriage" business.... however they care to define it.

[evirus]

58. civil union is a little too close to seperate but equal

IMHO

[xchrom]

70. i. am. equal.

now gimme my fucking rights, already.

[stepnw1f]

73. It Truly is Amazing

that anyone should care if two, who being in love, wish to get married. Lose the hang ups people and swallow a bit of that hetero priviledged pride. Let people marry... it's a good thing, not a bad thing. And worry about your own marriages.

[WestSeattle2]

76. No restrictions...get this:

Say you live in the state of Washington. You're straight, and own a home. You get married and wish to grant 1/2 ownership in your house to your lovely new bride. No problem! Quit claim deed, county filing fee, and you're done. The lovely missus is added to the title documents.

However, let's say you're gay and own a home. You welcome a partner into your life. You want to grant him or her 1/2 ownership in your house. The state of Washington accesses a real estate excise tax on the value of the transferred ownership interest. This tax is not levied against heterosexual couples.

It's these type of everyday injustices that really make the argument for unrestricted marriage equality. :toast:

[Withywindle]

77. Equal means equal.

It's not gays who want "special rights", it's homophobic straights who want to hang onto feeling superior with a privilege they want to deny to others for no rational reason. To hell with them and their superstitions. I can't believe this is even a question at DU.

[Zhade]

78. Wow, got some bigots here, eh?

FUCK YOU ALL, you assholes.

If you call yourself a Dem, change your title, you're lying to yourself.

Fucking homophobes.

[troubleinwinter]

80. Or 'visitors' from you-know-where.

:puke:

[Zhade]

82. Same thing!

:P

[cushla_machree]

79. WTF

I can't believe people here voted for the top 3. I hope that is a joke.

[cboy4]

81. THANK YOU to the overwhelming number of you who voted

yes on this. ;)

It means a lot to us who are under assault by members of the 700 Club who tragically (yet rightfully since it's a free country) have accounts here at DU.