Gay Marriage

[Seshat]

I was part of a long debate on a mailing list over this issue - and the debate ended when we realised we were ultimately in agreement on the practicalities, and it was a wording problem.

The religious people saw 'marriage' and 'wedding' as words for a religious ceremony, and didn't care if the gay people attained the civil rights associated with marriage. They just didn't want the words 'marriage' and 'wedding' being hijacked for something that offended their beliefs.

The gay people in this particular discussion just wanted the civil rights, and didn't want to barge into religious institutions where they weren't wanted. They were using the words 'marriage' and 'wedding' because those are the current words for the legal arrangement under debate.

Once everyone understood that, both sides sheepishly apologised for having gotten so angry and heated about the discussion, and were all friends again. It was almost funny.

Obviously, this particular mailing list didn't include any of the religious people who are offended by the whole idea of homosexuals having permanent loving relationships; and our gay people who wanted a religious blessing for their relationship were of the 'I'll have it in a church that welcomes me, thanks' attitude.

Ever since then, I've told this little story to everyone who's tried to get me into a 'gay marriage debate', and it's pretty much shut the debate down.
Noone ever seems to want to argue that gay couples shouldn't have rights like being next-of-kin to their partner. At least, not in front of me. It's almost disappointing.

[Kara_CS]

Took me awhile to find this one, I don't do much Fratching.

It's probably pretty obvious where I stand on this issue. I'm fortunate enough to work for a massive corporation that offers "domestic partner" insurance. Sure, marriage is just the government recognizing the union of two people (well, basically). As was previously mentioned, it's not such a sacred thing, at least, not anymore. But why should anyone be denied the right to marry the person they love, no matter who that person is? To have concrete proof that you have committed yourself to one person for the rest of your life (at least, if you believe in true love and fidelity, which most married couples do not).

What strikes me the most contradictory of this entire fracas of an issue is that it always comes down to "God says it's wrong." These are the same people who expel students who have a Bible in school. The same people who are offended by the line "One Nation, Under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance. The same people who get up in arms about the "Separation of Church and State," which is THE most misunderstood line in the entire bloody Constitution (and the subject of a separate topic altogether). But when it comes to gay marriage or gay rights, everyone uses religion to fight it.

I'm religious. I'm not Wiccan, or a Satanist, or a Scientologist, or Klingon. I'm a Christian. I go to church with the aldulterers, child abusers, alchoholics, liars, wife-beaters, drug addicts, thieves, swindlers, gossipers, maybe even murderers (the BTK serial killer was president of his church congregation after all). But we're all there for the same thing, except those who go because they feel obligated to. God turns away no one from His house. What these people who declare that "God hates fags," and that gay marriage is a violation of God's law don't understand is that God IS love. Without Him, love cannot exist. The only thing in the entire Bible that it states God despises is sin, and all sin is equal. And he forgives all through love.

Knowing this, how can anyone who uses religion as a weapon of hate proclaim that love is wrong and should be denied?

I'll shut up now.

[rahmota]

Well that is one reason why they are called HUMAN rights. As they shold aply to all humans. Too bad too many of the christian fundies dont see homosexuals as people.

Here is a site that has a good argument for homosexual marriage that I've borrowed or referenced quite a few times in the past.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Very intelligent and rational.

Puck: The DOMA was created and pushed throug by a republican ruled congress. While Clinton did not oppose it and does oppose homosexual marriage the act itself was not his invention. That is one of the thigns I do not agree with or like about Clinton though.

About the Act itself though. Since the SCOTUS is conservative based they ahve refused to hear any of the arguments about how unconstitutional the DOMA is. 1:it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
2: Discriminates againt people violating the Equal Protection Clause
3: and prohibits the Due Process Clause.

Among other things.

[blas87]

There are too many horrible problems going on in this world, too many to even list...

and yet all these right wing nutjobs care about is bashing gay people, trying to make it impossible for them to get married, doing everything in their power to prove that they are going to Hell........

It's ridiculous. Let's forget about destroying gay people's rights and focus on real problems. They deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[CancelMyService]

I think it should be allowed by law, and if individual churches don't want to conduct gay marriages, then that's their choice. People talk about slippery slopes all the time, but once we start making laws stating who we can and can't marry, that can lead to all sorts of things no one of any political persuasion wants to see.

Along those lines, why is it that the traditional conservative viewpoint of keeping government out of people's personal lives doesn't seem to apply to their favorite wedge issues? To me it just exposes the bigoted and hypocritical stand on these issues when it goes against everything they supposedly stand for in other matters.

[powerboy]

To me, it doesn't matter if you are gay. If you want to get married, then more power to you. I am not against gay people.

[protege]

By the way, the legal basis for denial of same-sex marriage is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legally defining marriage as an act entered into by a man and a woman...signed into law in the 1990s by President Blowjob. Every time we rail against the religious nature of the current Administration's policies, I invite everyone to recall that fact -- it's all over the place, my friends.

I find that humorous--the Act was signed into law...by the very same president who seemed hell-bent on destroying his own marriage. Anyone see the hypocrisy there?

While we're on the topic of insurance, suppose gay marriage did become legal. I have a feeling that we'd see a drop in the number of people without health insurance and other benefits.

[Puckishone]

I'm a little surprised no one's advanced this argument in favor of gay marriage: the additional revenue for states and municipalities. Say a marriage license is $50, and your state requires a blood test (another $50 or so), and the couple in question want a big, splashy wedding at a posh spot (anywhere from $5000 on up into the freakin' stratosphere)...the possibilities are as endless as any given couple's desire to spend.

By the way, the legal basis for denial of same-sex marriage is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legally defining marriage as an act entered into by a man and a woman...signed into law in the 1990s by President Blowjob. Every time we rail against the religious nature of the current Administration's policies, I invite everyone to recall that fact -- it's all over the place, my friends.

Washington (State, my home) just passed legislation allowing same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples over 62 years of age to register with the state as domestic partners (at $50 a pop...ka-ching!!). While this isn't marriage, it does allow them certain rights that married couples would have (such as power of attorney and similar legal rights). It's a start, but in a state that most people think is just a shade less hairy-toed than Oregon, we should have made more progress by now.

Just think: Canada, Spain and South Africa are all more progressive than we are on this issue.

[AFPheonix]

Well....except that if the couple leaves NJ, they are no longer spouses, but strangers under the law, and the rights they gained as a couple are gone.
So here's to hoping no one gets injured while out of the state, because the other will not be able to see or be able to make decisions in the first's stead.

Oregon just passed a domestic partnership bill a few months ago, to become active next year. Conservatives are already sending out their petitioners to get signatures to see if they can put the new measures to a ballot.
If that happens, I guess I'll be cancelling out my mom's vote again.....sigh....

[Will-Mun]

Well Jersey has the Civil Union passed, one of I think now only 4 states to have it, (I think it's still in the process of being passed in many states where it's not specifically banned, while other states have 'Domestic Partnership'). Honestly, it's a smoke screen. I think it should just be called marriage. But I am glad I am in a state that is, at least in part, half intelligent.

[AFPheonix]

I was amazed that a gay marriage ban passed here in Oregon of all places. I thought for sure that the state of hippy love and hairy toes would be able to rally a stand for equal rights for all, but apparently not.

[Greenday]

Because the majority of the country blindly follows their religion and their religions say it's wrong because that's how it's always been. And, since the government uses religion as a way to control the people, it will use religion as an excuse to achieve its goals. In this current government, they don't want gay marriage so they play on the fact that many religions ban homosexuality.

[Will-Mun]

Again it seems everyones in agreement. Figured as much, and maybe it doesn't need to be said as people were just throwing it out as their opinion, but of course Churches would have EVERY right to refuse to marry someone.

Hell, most churches are just a ceremony. I mean you're technically married the in the court house when you sign your marriage license. And there are plenty of people who can marry you besides your holy man of choice.

If I owned a boat I could marry you.

But of course, no Church should ever be required to marry anyone they do not wish to. As that would be the STATE stepping into CHURCH, which is just as wrong. But there are plenty of Churches of both Christian and alternate religions that have no problem with marrying two dudes, or a couple of chicks.

But man... Nobody here against it? Not ONE person can come up with a reason that has nothing to do with religious beliefs?

So why the hell isn't it legal?

[AFPheonix]

And that's precisely what that particular couple's point was. They wanted to get married in what is pretty much a public place, not in the church.

[Rapscallion]

I don't have any problem with gay marriage. I also don't have any problem with some religious institutions saying it's wrong - that's the job of religion (to tell people how to live).

I'd have a problem if a gay couple insisted that they should be able to marry in a church that forbade gay marriage.

Rapscallion