On gay marriage: there are no giant differences between us other than the ones we make.

[originalpckelly]

Gay is different, but it shouldn't and doesn't have to be so different that we can't all get along. We're like a big family, and people, let me tell you we need to have a reunion. I think we should start off with civil unions and work our way from there. I'm someone who'd be affected by that, and I'd love to have someone call it a marriage, but if you want to define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman, that's fine with me. I just want to have the legal rights of someone who's married, the people who care about me will call it a marriage, if they can handle it.

[dionysus]

1. .

:thumbsup:

[originalpckelly]

2. Thanks sweetie!

Hopefully, I'll find a wonderful guy to get civil unioned to one day!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. Fuck that

Separate but equal is not equal. And civil unions don't work.

You certainly don't speak for the gay community in the slightest. Thank fucking God.

[originalpckelly]

5. I don't think I need to ask a government to step in love, or to have it ordain my marriage.

I guess I'm the only one who thinks that marriage should be about two people, and the people they love. Not total strangers voting.

I say step in love, because as anyone who's been in love knows, it's always about dealing with shit and cleaning up messes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

7. Sorry, but I kind of like having equal civil rights

If you want to be a second class citizen, go right ahead, but I don't want to be one.

Civil unions do not fucking work.

[originalpckelly]

8. My civil unions would have all the same rights as a marriage.

I'd like to do away with all legal marriages, and only have civil unions.

And I would make divorce a lot easier. Streamline divorce so people who are unioned can get out of a bad union ASAP. Once you figure out it's not working for you, that shit is over, I'd bet. Make getting unioned just as easy though, so that people who do it in a fight can come back together.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

15. Completely, totally, 100% untrue.

You haven't done nearly enough research. Civil unions are not NOT NOT equal to marriage.

Here, read this:

In the parking lot, Bob, his partner of 26 years, said goodbye to a photograph. It was a photograph of he and Kenneth on vacation celebrating their honeymoon 6 years ago after having been “married” in a ceremony that meant nothing more than symbolism to a society that was, at turns, benevolent about the whims of a few gay folk, yet smirking about his love for another person of the same sex. “Have your fake ceremonies, for what they are worth, but don’t get obnoxious and ask for anything actually bordering on legal or realistic.” society told them. But Kenneth & Bob took it, because validating it to one another was really what counted. But tonight, it ended up needing to mean so much more.

Bob carried that photograph in his wallet as a reminder of his relationship and what it meant to him. Tonight, he said goodbye to a smiling face in a picture because he had no legal right to be present to say goodbye to his loved one in person. So Bob sat in the parking lot in the passenger seat of my car and wondered the fate of the man he had given his love and life to. He held the only thing at that moment Kenneth’s family could not take away from him – that photograph.

The hospital, at the behest of Kenneth’s family, had banned Bob from Kenneth’s room, or seeing him in the hospital at all. 26 years treated as though they were mere passing acquaintances or work colleagues. Simply because Kenneth’s family could never accept their son’s orientation (NOT “lifestyle” as some refer to it).

Tonight, a nurse sympathetic to Bob’s situation and in violation of the hospital policies, came to the car window and delivered the news to Bob that Kenneth was gone. And Bob said his goodbyes and wishes of love and peace to a picture. A fucking photograph. Held to his chest as though he were holding his loved one in tears. Because that was all he had.

...

Some people have mentioned legal papers as a form of protection from this sort of thing. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, as did Bob and Kenneth because they had them drawn up. But what happened last night revealed a chink in the armour regarding that form of “protection”. Bob did not have access to those papers, because he was with me and not at home.

...

There was no time, nor presence of mind under the circumstances, to race across Phoenix (a sprawling place for those who know) to get a piece of paper to wave in front of some administrator so Bob could be afforded his legal rights.

Those who say that civil unions are "enough" are clueless. Had they been actually, legally married, they wouldn't have to have "waved a piece of paper" at the hospital staff. It would have been a given that his spouse were to be allowed at his bedside.

Sorry, Kelly, but your opinion- such as it is- makes me very, very angry. Civil unions are not and will never be "enough", for reasons such as those related above.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

26. Civil unions don't work

Just look at NJ and you'll see they don't work.

[iquiring mind]

32. Do away with Marriage!

I have proposed this solution for several years and I don't understand why this isn't attempted. All those attacking your position do so with the argument that Civil Unions are not and will never be equal to Marriage.

If I understand your position correctly, the term "Marriage" would be stripped from current laws and replace with the term "Civil Union" (or any other term). Thus, all "separate but equal" arguments will be moot. All unions: heterosexual, homosexual, transgendered, et.al. would be equal under the law and would be called a "Civil Union", with all legal protections previously ascribed to "Marriage".

In my opinion, many polls consistently show the American public is against changing the definition of "marriage". It has been a defined term for thousands of years.

Why slam your head directly into the wall when you can walk around it?

You may call your union whatever you wish, the religious right may call their union whatever they wish. The government will call it "Civil Union".


For those who demanding a separation of Church/State: Isn't the government's recognition and use of the term Marriage the acceptance of a religious doctrine, ie: Judeo/Christian doctrine. And under the separation of church and state clause, wouldn't you want to eliminate this religious terminology?

[bullwinkle428]

10. Marriage is still a legal issue, no matter how you personally

choose to define the issue.

Of course, it would be so much easier just to change the legal definition of marriage in general... :sarcasm:

[sui generis]

4. good enough is not good enough.

Marriage should be the choice and right of any adult american.


It's not about gayness or sex or procreation. It's about the rights of being an American. The title does matter very much. We don't insist that people of color call it something else. Why should we accept what is doled out to us?

Marriage is a covenant of mutual fiscal and familial responsibility between two individuals, period.

There is no other definition in secular government. It's marriage or it's not marriage.

Here's a thought: If you can get married as a straight couple (or at least, opposite gender couple), you cannot legally get married a second time as long as your original marriage is still legal and binding.

Civil unions - there is no federal law preventing you from being civilly unioned and domestically partnered and married three times over in separate states.

Do you REALLY want that?

[originalpckelly]

6. It already is. Fuck the government if it thinks it's the reason people get married.

I think people get married when they want to, and the government just gives them legal rights. That's why I'm cool with civil unions.

[sui generis]

12. appreciate the sentiment but it's not well informed.

Elton John is cool with civil unions too, which is preposterous.

AGAIN:

Marriage allows you to define your family unit and your next of kin. It implicitly gives you the right to manage your own property and legal affairs.

Civil Unions do not.

None of this has a damn thing to do with love.

[Toasterlad]

11. Separate But Equal Is ALWAYS Wrong.

I'll never for the life of me understand gay people who'd embrace separate water fountains. What low self esteem they must have.

[NorthernSpy]

24. We segregate prisons, public bathrooms, sports teams, some schools, etc by sex.

"Always wrong"?


:shrug:


We seem to have no problem with the concept of separate but equal when applied to sex/gender.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. yes, we do, because the assumption is that it protects women.

how stupid are you?

[NorthernSpy]

30. That's PART of the assumption.

But even that is not the most basic assumption being made when we approve of separate but equal treatment of men and women.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. so gays should be considered seperate from straights. is that your argument or is it not?

one major thing you also dont take into acct is men and women, by and large, do want some seperation when they pee.

gay do NOT want seperation on marriage. so its a straight oprression of gays. not an area we have both decided should be seperate.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Amazing how he's never answered that point this whole time.

[Toasterlad]

36. I Was Referring to the Historical Application of Separate But Equal.

As La Lioness has mentioned, there's an entirely different dynamic at work regarding gender based on common practicality and safety concerns that has nothing to do with inherent discrimination. Most rational people would not consider this segregation in the historical sense.

[ismnotwasm]

13. No, marriage is crucial

In my idealistic world, I see no one ever getting married, or perhaps we'll have marriage contracts in year increments of choice I see gender roles blurred and biological gender equal, with recognition that XX and XY never tells the whole story of any single individual. That's science fiction at this point

In my real world I'm disgusted and appalled that Gays are not allowed basic human rights, including the right to be married to their partner of choice. If we don't fight for it, If we allow "civil unions" to become what's allowed, we are dehumanizing Gays, telling them they are of less value. It's bullshit. It will always be bullshit. It always has been bullshit. Denying Gays marriage goes beyond being plain wrong, and into the realm I call evil, because I don't have the words to describe such deliberate damage to our basic humanity. It's sick.

[Tim01]

14. It is the word that the right freaks out about.

And I don't want to get into what they are really going on about. And most middle/average people really don't care one way or the other.
And I have heard that the real meaning of the word "marriage" goes back to latin or greek or something meaning a man and a woman.
But civil union just sounds like crap. So is there another phrase or word that could be used? If marriage really does mean a man and a woman then the meaning of the word is being changed on purpose. I know it happens in the english language, but I don't really support that.Not a totally big deal to me one way or the other.
But maybe if there was a better word for gay marriage then the fundies could keep their precious word, and gays could get the benefits and legal stuff they want, and they could have the same recognition as a married couple.
I just don't know what that word or phrase could be.


I'm standing by to be called insensitive again. But I have stayed out of the GLBT forum as I promised.

[Creideiki]

16. No. If that were true

then there wouldn't be laws like Tim Kaine's Virginia (is for straight lovers only) amendment that bans not only same-sex marriage but ANY CONTRACT THAT SEEKS TO DUPLICATE ANY FUNCTION OF MARRIAGE.

Add to that Michigan's hateful amendment that says that gay people can't enter into POA with their spouse (because that is too similar to marriage) and the rest and, well, you see.

Add to that the proposed proposition in Washington State to forbid domestic partnerships with the same rights as those oh-so-special straight people.

It's not about the word "marriage" for the right. It's for treating people decently.

For the centrists and heterosexist left it's the word marriage. But for the right, it's treating people like they're not crap.

Thanks, though, for bringing up an excellent opportunity to point out general ignorance on a topic.

[Tim01]

34. Ok, I didn't know about those other laws. You make good points.

Thanks for the info. I guess things are a bit worse than I thought.

[Creideiki]

38. This is what we're dealing with.

We get mocked by the religious right that we don't have "life partners", we have "death partners". Then in Colorado we get the completely moldy crumb called "Designated Beneficiary". This is because the "good" people of Colorado couldn't even stand the thought of "Civil Unions", so they're banned specifically (as are other marriage-equivalent or marriage-lite alternatives) in our Constitution.

So now I can have a death partner who I can jointly own property with who will not have to pay taxes on the inheritance when I die. What's even more insulting is that according to the incrementalists, this is a good thing, and I should be happy with this.

This would be the same as if, at every meal growing up, my mother served everyone else dinner, and then waited until mine was mushy with little burnt crumbles at the bottom and she gave that to me.

[bluedawg12]

20. I didn't vote for a fundy and I don't care what they think.

Civil rights get changed and terms get redefined. Funny about social progress...as in "progressive."

[Tim01]

35. Go ahead and draw that line in the sand. It doesn't matter to me.

[Creideiki]

39. Hate to break it to you

But if you voted for Obama, you voted for a fundy. (Granted, less objectionable than Palin once she had Gramps poisoned.)

We knew that. But when we pointed that out during the primaries and general election, we were vilified.

[Creideiki]

17. I think that many "LGBT" people that are against gay marriage should have the option

to not get married.

Just like many straight couples exercise their option to live in sin and not get married.

I also think that many people need to bathe more often. And maybe remove the spinach from between their teeth. Then again, if they did, then maybe they wouldn't be single advocates against marriage.

[Terran]

18. I used to think the way you do.

But in the recent past I've become persuaded of legal lunacy of attempting to set up a separate-but-equal system of rights. I don't agree that civil unions don't work, or that separate-but-equal is inherently bad, but the US Constitution plainly states that we all must be treated equally before the law, and we're not getting that treatment. The idea of jury-rigging a set of regulations to get around that basic tenet is ludicrous.

It's a BIG economic issue for me, as it is for all same-sex couples; but I want it done right.

[bluedawg12]

19. If you want to have the have the legal rights of someone who's married- you must be married.

It's that simple.

[Chovexani]

21. Well then you go ahead and be happy with that Jim Crow bullshit

Those of us who are not self-loathing are not satisfied with crumbs from Massa's table. We want a seat at the table, an invitation to the feast. This is about more than a word and if you're too goddamn simple to see that then you don't deserve equality, be happy to wallow in the mud fascist straight bigots set out for you.

And we will be in the streets today fighting for the invitation for all of us LGBT including the self-haters. Will you be there?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

22. I bet you were ok with "Colored" restrooms, too.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. if you are willing to accept you are not as good as, do it but honestly dont expect the rest of us

to settle for this shit.

this has nothign to do with marriage, for me. it has to do with equality. i am not second rate. my relationships are not second rate. my friends are not second rate and i refuse to settle for some second rate rights.

[RetroLounge]

27. Total bullshit...

Jim Crow bullshit.

RL

[Jamastiene]

29. Oh, give me a fucking break.

I refuse to "get along" with people who do not believe in equal rights for all. It is not like there are a limited number of rights to go around. The Founding Fathers said equal rights for ALL and dammit, it's about time this corrupt excuse for government we have starts doling out the goddamn equal rights for ALL. All or none. Enough is enough. Fuck this Jim Crow shit.

[bigwillq]

37. No fucking way.

Marriage equality for all, or bust.