Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

[Yelowsub]

Well tomorrow I am going to be giving a speech tomorrow in my freshman seminar class about why same sex civil unions should be recognized. Oh dear I'm nervous. I don't feel like I'm saying anything write in my speech. I really don't know how much people know about the issue so I do not know how far to go with it.

[maudmac]

Oooh, that sounds interesting. I hope it goes well for you, Yelowsub.

---

So up on your feet. Up on your feet! Somewhere there’s music playing.
Don’t you worry none. We’ll just take it like it comes. One day at a time, one day at a time.
-- "One Day at a Time" - John and Nancy Barry

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Er, due to the great censor of the local library filter system here, I haven't been able to make any comment til now.



First of all let me say that these comments come from a straight male. Why I say that straight away will, I hope, become clear. I also live in Scotland (not to be confused with England, for reasons I will point out later) and I wish to comment on the current position in Britain.



I have the right to fall in love with a woman, and if she is agreeing, to marry her and have that union blessed by the state and accepted by the state.



Now here is my problem, there are two kinds of wedding ceremony in Britain, as with most countries in the west: A church wedding and a civil wedding. I personally am glad there are civil wedings because as an atheist I feel somewhat hypocritical in going to a church to get married when I don't go there any other time, except for other people's weddings and funerals. My question is this: If two people, in a legally recognised relationship (as both straight and gay are in Britain, with the same age of consent (16)) then why can't both get married under the law and allow the state to recognise the legality of that union? It seems to me very silly that my relationship is somehow "better" than a gay relationship simply because I am straight. Maybe I am over-simplifying a complex problem, or maybe the true problem lies in the fact that too many people over-complicate a very simple problem.



In Scotland we recently had a debate in our parliament about civil partnerships, which would allow property rights, next of kin status and tax exemptions as a married couple but not allow the couple the right of using "Mr and Mr" or "Mrs and Mrs" as a married couple would. We here in Scotland have a seperate legal system from the rest of Britain and had the chance to take the lead in this. Instead the parliament voted to allow London to make policy for the whole of Britain on this subject. This was a slap in the face, as far as I can see, for both Scottish law and the rights of gay people in Scotland, as gaining rights here would have forced the rest of Britain into a position of following suit.



It is not quite gay marriage, which I believe is inevitable, but it is a start. A start that send the signal that gay people are entitled to equal treatment under the law. I hope that anyone here who is British, should lobby there local MP to support Civil Partnerships as a stepping stone to full marriage rights.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[Darcy]

Well, the court in NJ just threw out the gay marriage suit, which was more-or-less expected, although I did hope that since the plaintiffs almost always prevail at the higher levels and whenever these cases actually go to trial that we'd get to actually have a hearing on the merits. Lambda Legal will appeal, of course, and eventually it will end up in the NJ Supreme Court.



I skipped a Lambda Legal meeting with Sen. Diane Allen last night because I have a horrible cold, but my mother went without me. She reported that Sen. Allen was mostly sympathetic, but seemed to think that getting anything beyond domestic partnership via the legislature is unrealistic, at least at this time.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Yelowsub]

I gave my speech yesterday. It went very well. After I was done every said that I looked very calm (which was a HUGE suprise since my hands were shaking uncontrobably and my palms were all sweaty, not a pretty picture) They also said that they could tell how devoted I was to the topic. It made me feel very good.



Then after I was done one boy took the handout (I had printed out a bunch of websites such as hrc.org and their link to write to a senator) he took the paper, crumpled it up, threw it across the room into the trash can and said "I hate gays. It was a good speech, but I hate gays."



I really didn't know how to act so I just sarcasticly said "Why thank you" and sat down. I almost burst into tears.



But my boyfriend left me a note in my online diary (hmm maybe now would be the time to tell him that I am bi, but I think that he already knows, anyway)...



"hold your head high, smile, and don't let their biggoted comments hurt the way they want them to... ignore them, just the fact that they felt the outburst was neccisary means that you pushed buttons they didn't like...you said something they'd have trouble refuting..you've already won."

[WebWarlock]

Chicago columnist Eric Zorn is asking what is more trivializing and degrading to the institute of marriage more, a considered, loving commitment between gay people or a roadside Vegas wedding, ala Britney Spears?



I think most people here will agree with Zorn.



You can read his report here and post your own comments here and a history of his point of view and debate with right winger Allan Carlson here.



Interesting reading at least.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks. Available Now!

"I'm going to open a bag of freak on all of you..." - Dr. Drakken, from "A Very Possible Christmas"

[maudmac]

Tim, reading that debate, I thought I was going to have a stroke. But Zorn came back with everything I would have said and it soothed me. Better. Thanks!



Seriously, shit like getting married as a joke, on a whim, to a stranger when you're drunk...any of those situations, yeah, they really uphold the sanctity of the marital union between a man and a woman blah blah blah. No doubt if same-sex marriage were legal, lots of lesbians and gay men would be having those same kinds of horrible marriages, too, of course, but when straight people do that, it does underscore how ludicrous it is to argue that if I can marry my girlfriend, all of human civilization will crumble around our dykey feet. It's so obvious to me that it completely invalidates any and all arguments against gay marriage.

---

go         donut           go

[robotguru]

There was talk on the news in England (I know this has been brought up earlier in the thread with Scotland and i don't know the situation there seeing as i thought the Scottish Parliament would have made that decision for themselves), about a debate over whether gay couples should be allowed the privileges of marriage (E.G possession of the house if the partner dies) or whether that is unfair on those straight couples who choose not to marry.



Since these laws would affect me, i am obviously biased but as far as i can see, if straight couples choose to not even go down to the registry office that's up to them, surely they don't deserve those rights as they choose not to marry or register as a couple. The fact is, the gay population do not have that choice, we cannot legally get married and if a partner dies, then their family often sees that the surviving partner has no rights over the house and possessions often seizing them themselves and there is no law to stop that ( i could be wrong so if any Law boffins happen to know otherwise please let me know).



I don't know the current situation as i have heard nothing on it since.

[Darcy]

Yesterday NJ enacted a domestic partnership bill providing some limited protections and rights for same-sex couples (and opposite-sex couples over age 62), including hospital visitation/decision-making, state inheritance tax relief, and pension/insurance benefits for domestic partners of state employees (like me). Of course, I'd still have to pay federal tax on any benefits accruing to my partner, which rather negates some of the advantages there. (Sen. Corzine is a cosponsor of S.1702, the "Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act", which would extend the exemption for benefits covering spouses to domestic partners, but we ain't there yet.)



The local paper called me up for reaction (since Melissa and I had our 15 minutes of fame when our picture (taken at a marriage equality meeting) covered half the front page). My basic position was "it helps, but it's not marriage - and marriage is what I really want!"



We still don't know if we'll be getting married (again) in Massachusetts later this year when the court's stay of its decision expires. An interesting note to the Massachusetts case: the 180-day stay expires on the 50th anniversary of the historic "Brown v. Board of Education" decision by the US Supreme Court (5/17/1954). The crux of that decision is that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal - a concept that could be crucial as the fight for marriage equality goes forward.



So we've gotten half a loaf, which is better than nothing - but I'm still demanding a seat at the table and a full plate!

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[urnofosiris]

I caught the final minutes of a cheesy wedding show on Dutch TV tonight, it is called "Love Letters". It features three couples who want to get married. One partner pops the big question to the other in a suprising, hopefully original and romantic way and then they 'battle' against the other couples. The winner gets a luxurious honeymoon and an extra price. Tonight a gay couple won. And to win the extra price they had to kiss for exactly 30 seconds, they had to time it themselves and they kissed for 29.79 seconds which earned them 45.000 euros. :d It's a silly show, but it very nice to see two men win out over two straight couples and kiss on air, there was a time where that would have been unthinkable, but not anymore.

[Darcy]

OK, this is depressing, but I guess we need to know about it. Ohio has passed a particularly mean-spirited law not only banning same-sex marriages, but also prohibiting spousal or domestic-partnership benefits to unmarried partners of state workers. It's expected to be signed by the governor next week. It was pushed through with no committee hearings, apparently in an effort to get this sort of divisive issue out of the way well before the November elections. I find that ironic, given that one of the constant complaints of opponents of marriage equality is that the public should have a say in the matter. Any Ohio kittens who'd like to make that point in a letter to the editor .....?



BTW, I recommend the book "Civil Wars" by David Moats, which lays out the story of how Vermont got to civil unions. It's a fascinating look at the people behind the process. One of the things I found saddest is the indication that apparently those who supported civil unions (and at least one of the majority Justices in the Baker decision that forced the state to deal with the issue) were convinced by what they learned during the public hearings that extending marriage was the true remedy, but neither the legislators nor the rest of the majority Justices thought that was an attainable goal. They were probably right, but to know that we were so close and still ended up with a second-class status is very disappointing.



I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome in Massachusetts, where the legislature has asked the Court whether a civil-union solution will pass muster.



On a personal note - Melissa says I'm getting far too much entertainment out of telling all the health-care people I've been dealing with since breaking my ankle Tuesday that I'm married, introducing her as my wife, asking whether my wife can come back with me, and so on. It's probably true - I have been enjoying that aspect of things. I've gotten a couple of double-takes, but for the most part people have been taking it in stride. I always add that we were married in Canada so they know it's "real". I don't know what role the recent domestic partnership legislation is playing in this, expecially since it's not really in effect yet, but it's kind of reassuring.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Darcy]

HRC has sent out an alarm that anti-marriage forces are targeting Massachusetts, flooding the state legislature and Massachusetts households with anti-equality messages. A vote on an amendment to the state constitution is scheduled for Feb. 11. HRC and MassEquality.ORG are partnering to launch a counter-effort.



If you live in or know anybody in Massachusetts, PLEASE enlist them in the fight to defeat this attempt to amend the constitution to deny equal rights to LGBT families:



How You Can Help In Massachusetts



1. Get more information at http://www.MassEquality.org



2. Email family and friends in Massachusetts, asking them to do the following:



a) Attend organized phone banks in Boston to call members and legislators.

b) Call their state legislator

c) Write letters to their state legislators telling them to oppose an anti-gay constitutional amendment.



3. Make phone calls to familiy and friends in Massachusetts. Make a personal plea for them to call their state legislators and tell them to oppose any attempt to amend the constitution.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Warduke]

Read this obver at Yahoo

Quote:

---

Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage



By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer



BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.



The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of marriage — but not the title — would meet constitutional muster.



The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next week's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.



The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.



But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and advocates on both side of the issue — uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.



The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

---

---

Firebird: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[WebWarlock]

News thread or here? Hmmm.



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...i-news-hed

Quote:

---

Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage



By JENNIFER PETER

Associated Press Writer

Published February 4, 2004, 11:46 AM CST



BOSTON -- The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- are constitutional, clearing the way for the nation's first same-sex marriages in the state as early as May.



"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion requested by the state Senate.



After seven gay couples sued in 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.



But the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both sides -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.



The Massachusetts court said any civil unions bill that falls short of marriage would establish an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."



The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court, whose advisory opinion was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.



The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.



The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.



"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."



Travaglini said he wanted time to talk with fellow senators before deciding what to do next.



"I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and define what's the appropriate way to proceed," Travaglini said.



Conservative leaders said they were not surprised by the advisory opinion, and vowed to redouble their efforts to pass the constitutional amendment.



Mary Bonauto, an attorney who represented the seven couples who filed the lawsuit, said she anticipated a fierce battle, saying that "no matter what you think about the court's decision, it's always wrong to change the constitution to write discrimination into it."



When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.



President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry.



And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.



What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.



Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.



Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling -- or if actual marriages were required.



When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.



The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.



The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."



The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when the seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.



A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.



The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.



Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.



Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

---

Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"Does anybody remember laughter?" - Robert Plant, "The Song Remains the Same"

[kyraroc]

Wahoo!



Now, why the *&@^! did I move away from Massachusetts again?



Ah, well, at least my vote may actually count in the next presidential election. Stupid electoral college.



--- kyraroc

Lost in Ecstacy

[Darcy]

Hooray!



I read the court's original opinion and I thought it was pretty clear that only full access to civil marriage would do, but I'm glad they confirmed it. The references to "separate but equal" in their advisory opinion certainly support speculation that they deliberately timed their decision so that the 180 days would expire on the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision.



For those (like Melissa and I) considering a trip to Massachusetts to engage in this new variation on "Boston marriage", you should be aware that there is some question of the effect of their law (from 1913, I think) that a marriage license can be denied if the marriage would not be permitted in their home state. (For example, if the minimum age is higher or the blood relationship must be more distant there).



My guess is that at least some clerks' offices (like Cambridge, which didn't want to wait the 180 days, or maybe Northampton) will be unlikely to refuse licenses on that basis, but the validity of the license could theoretically be challenged, so keep that in mind.



The ACLU has a FAQ on Massachusetts marriage that's worth checking out if you're considering it:



www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14455&c=101

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Kieli]

I have a question to ask, of a somewhat personal nature. My "wife" (in my mind only) is not interested in gay marriage in the slightest and she could care less about civil unions. She's terribly uninterested in the whole deal, while I'm excited about it and that has me worried. I would like for us to be married or at least joined in a civil union at some point. However, I'm filled with trepidation over my lover's reticence and lackadaisical attitude toward it. Should I be concerned?



Thanks all!



Toni

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[ExtraFlameyWT]

Hey...I was so excited about the court repeating themselves today. It has confirmed the fact that my girl and I will be getting married in Massachusetts this summer. We'll be living up there then...I'm so happy! *grin* Anyway, I'm going to stop gushing now...



Toni, I'm sorry to hear that...does she know how much it means to you? Maybe if you let her know...she may be a little more excited...and maybe even want to go through with it. I hope everything works out...



Aimee

It's hard to be precise, though. Alternate universes don't stay put. Sending him to a specific place is like, like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it. Which is a weird image and you should all just forget it. -Willow in Triangle

[Darcy]

Kieli, I wouldn't worry too much about her lack of enthusiasm at this point. For a lot of people, marriage carries a lot of negative connotations, so the symbolism (which is mostly what it is for us right now) is kind of lost on them. The legal consequences can be important, especially if you have joint property, kids, health issues, or a family that doesn't accept the relationship. Many couples, straight and not, manage perfectly fine without ever jumping through the hoops of a marriage ceremony.



We're a ways away from being able to get married with any confidence that it will be acknowledged in other states. Until it is, there's really no rush to go out and get married unless you live in a state where it counts.



That said, I'm really happy that we've been taking every possible opportunity to establish legal recognition of our relationship. Most of it has been paperwork (California, Hawaii, and Philadelphia only require a notarized form). I expected that going through the brief ceremonies for the civil union and our wedding in Toronto would be a similarly businesslike matter. After 18 - 19 years together, how big a deal would a ceremony be, right?



But both times I found myself moved to tears, stirred by the magnitude of being able to declare in front of witnesses that this was the woman I loved and to whom I was pledging my life.



Have you seen the Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman? At the end, the ancient, wrinkled ex-slave walks with enormous dignity to the local courthouse before a crowd of angry whites, and drinks from the water fountain marked "Whites Only". I can only imagine the water tastes even sweeter when you've been thirsty for so long. And getting married felt kind of like that.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[BBOvenGuy]

One thing the Massachusetts decision has done is forced everyone to put their cards on the table. And it's pretty interesting - from a psychological standpoint as well as a legal one.



It seems like many people are willing to give same-sex couples the same legal rights when it comes to adoption, visitation, job benefits, etc. - what they balk at is the word "marriage." One little word. Eight little letters - or six if you only count the unique letters.



And why do they not want to give same-sex couples the right to use that one little word? "Because the sanctity of marriage must be protected!"



Well, wait a minute. Sanctity? Yes, "marriage is a sacred institution, and we must protect it." But hold on - if marriage is a sacred institution, then what is the civil government doing trying to legislate it? Don't we have the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall pass no law that restricts the free exercise of religion? Well, it just so happens that my church thinks it would be okay to marry same-sex couples. Doesn't the "Defense of Marriage Act" infringe on my church's rights?



So I have a radical idea: Let's declare all unions - homosexual and heterosexual -to be "civil" in the eyes of the government, and give them equal protection under the law. It would then be left to each religious institution to decide for itself who they considered "married" and who they didn't. If Catholics and Southern Baptists didn't want to marry same-sex couples, they wouldn't have to. If Episcopalians thought it was all right, they could do it.



Anybody think that could actually work?

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

Edited by: BBOvenGuy  at: 2/5/04 9:38 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

I have a question?Why does it have to be marriage.Why not civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage.Isn't that the discrimination problem that gay unions are denied certain legal rights granted to straight married couples.



I think civil unions is a reasonable comprimise,but to be honest I am just starting to look at things from a different point of veiw.It just seems to me that insisting that it be called marriage is a way of sticking it to religous conservatives.I am very dissillusioned with conservatism and no longer want anything to do with it.However,I am not interested in sticking it too anyone.Why marriage instead of civil unions?



ronnie

[J uk]

Quote:

---

I think civil unions is a reasonable comprimise

---

Here's a good site about the whole gay marriage debate:

www.americanhumanist.org/...rriage.htm

Quote:

---

Overall, granting gay and lesbian relationships legal recognition through civil unions instead of marriages implies—and may help confirm or even perpetuate—second-class status.

---

[Darcy]

I've gone on at length on these issues in earlier posts, so this is the short version.



Yes, if marriage is sacred, then government shouldn't have anything to do with it, and should recognize only civil unions. I've also made the argument that when the government decides it will only recognize some of the marriages a religious institution performs that it's guilty of infringing on religious freedom.



However, marriage is what's in our laws and policies, not only in government but in private organizations such as employers, insurers, community organizations, and so on.



As to why marriage is the goal rather than civil unions, I think the Massachusetts court was correct when it pointed out that "separate is seldom, if ever, equal".



Marriage has a portability that civil unions lack. Laws, policies, and procedures refer to it and to spouses. People know how to deal with marriage, because there are centuries of precedent establishing its rights and responsibilities.



I thin the biggest advantage of marriage over civil union is that only Vermont has civil unions. The unique status of civil unions has allowed states to get away with refusing to recognize them because they have no comparable status -but all 50 states have a legal status of "married". The US Constitution requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the official acts of other states. It's been used recently to force Mississipi to recognize a Vermont adoption by a lesbian couple even though the state's own laws prohibit adoption by same-sex parents. And beyond the state level, anything other than marriage deprives same-sex couples of more than 1,000 federal benefits.



I'm repeating myself here, but marriage is a legal status that already exists and provides everything I want in the way of governmentally imposed rights, benefits, and obligations for my relationship, and damnit, that's what I want - and I want it now!

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[BBOvenGuy]

Quote:

---

marriage is a legal status that already exists and provides everything I want in the way of governmentally imposed rights, benefits, and obligations for my relationship

---

Well, this is why I say the issue has as much to do with psychology as it has to do with law. In practice, you're right - marriage is a legal status as you describe. But that's not what the "defenders of marriage" are saying. They claim that marriage must be protected because it's a "sacred institution." They are, in effect, trying to have it both ways, and someone needs to explain to them that they can't do that. Either it's a legal status, in which case all people have a right to equal protection under the law, or it's a spiritual status, in which case the government has no business meddling with it. You can't say it's one thing to make one point and then say it's another to make a contradictory point.



Although really, if people want to defend the "sanctity" of marriage, they shouldn't be bothering with same-sex couples who have already lived through years or even decades of commitment to each other - they should be more concerned about Britney Spears or people who get married by Elvis impersonators.

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

Edited by: BBOvenGuy  at: 2/6/04 11:20 am

[willowrulz4ever]

Quote:

---

So I have a radical idea: Let's declare all unions - homosexual and heterosexual -to be "civil" in the eyes of the government, and give them equal protection under the law. It would then be left to each religious institution to decide for itself who they considered "married" and who they didn't. If Catholics and Southern Baptists didn't want to marry same-sex couples, they wouldn't have to. If Episcopalians thought it was all right, they could do it.

---

Exactly.I think marriage is a sacred institution and the state has no buissness in it.Having all unions be civil unions would satisfy the need of goverment to keep records on who is united,give all unions full legal benefits and keep the gov out of a religios institution.



I never thought of the DOM act as vilating the 1st ammendment but it does.



Ronnie

Edited by: Warduke at: 2/7/04 9:12 pm

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Although really, if people want to defend the "sanctity" of marriage, they shouldn't be bothering with same-sex couples who have already lived through years or even decades of commitment to each other - they should be more concerned about Britney Spears or people who get married by Elvis impersonators.

---

Indeed, or worry about the 57% or so (according to Dr.Phill) of those sacred institutions that end in divorce. Why is a union between two people of the same sex that love each other and stay faithful to each other for as long as they live less sacred than the oh we are drunk let´s get married now and divorced tomorrow crap some straight couples indulge in.

Edited by: DrG at: 2/8/04 2:14 am

[Kieli]

Just wanted to thank Darcy and everyone who responded to my question earlier. Your comments and observations were much appreciated in helping me wrestle with my dilemma. Now I'm off to formulate a proper response to the other thoughts posted here

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[WebWarlock]

Well color me surprised.



Mayor Richard Daley has come out to say he supports gay marriage, but said there is nothing he can do since it is a county issue, not a city one.



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...i-news-hed

Quote:

---

Daley has 'no problems' with gay marriages



Tribune staff reports

Published February 18, 2004, 3:20 PM CST



At a news conference called to announce his appointments to fill two key city jobs, Mayor Richard Daley weighed in on a national controversy by saying he had no problem with gay and lesbian couples becoming married.



Asked for his thoughts on gay marriages, Daley pointed out only County Clerk David Orr, not the city, has the power to grant marriage licenses. The county does not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, though last October it established a Domestic Partnership Registry.



"David Orr can do it any way he wants. That would be up to him. But I have no problems with that issue at all," Daley said.



"A lot of people are opposed to it. So be it," the mayor said. "But again, you have to point out the strength of that community -- they're doctors, they're lawyers, they're journalists, they're politicians, they're someone's son or daughter, they're someone's mother or father.



"They're parents, and I have been with them. They've adopted children. They have wonderful children. To me, we have to understand this is part and parcel of our families and our extended families."



Daley said "we have to understand" what the gay couples have been saying: "They love each other, just as much as anyone else. They believe that the benefits they don't have, they should have. And so I have a very open mind on it."



Asked about criticisms same-sex marriages undermine traditional families, Daley responded that it was divorce, not gay or lesbianism, at the root of the problem.



"People have to look at their own lives and at their own marriages," he said. "Don't blame the gay, lesbian, transgender community, please. Don't blame them for it."

---

This means, for those of you that follow Chicago politics (which is a different game alltogether) this means that I expect Illinois Gov Rod Blagovich to publicly support gay-marriage.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"Monkeys? Why is it always monkeys, why can't I be attacked by crazed super-models?" - Ron Stoppable, "Kim Possible"

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

S.F. to Sue State Over Gay Marriage Ban



By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer



SAN FRANCISCO - After sanctioning more than 2,800 gay marriages in the past week, the city said Thursday it is suing the state of California, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds.



City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he planned to file the suit by late afternoon.



"The city and county of San Francisco is going on the offensive today to protect the mayor's action" allowing gay marriage, Herrera said.



Two judges already are considering challenges from conservative groups seeking to halt the marriage spree that began last Thursday. The city's lawsuit asks that those cases be consolidated into one.



Mayor Gavin Newsom said he doesn't regret giving out marriage licenses before the city filed a legal challenge to the state's marriage laws, but added that he's glad the question is now in the courts.



"I think what we have done is affirm marriage here in San Francisco," Newsom said. "We affirmed it because we are celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."



A lawyer for a group trying to halt the gay marriages described the city's move as a delaying tactic.



"This is as much a maneuver to keep this in court and keep the issue alive as it is anything else," said Benjamin Bull, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund.



The city is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren to declare unconstitutional three sections of the California Family Code that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.



City officials want the judge to determine if barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution.



On Tuesday, Warren gave the city the choice of ending the same-sex wedding march or returning to court in late March to show why the process has not been halted. The city said it would continue issuing such licenses until forced to stop.



Judge Ronald Quidachay is considering a lawsuit filed by another conservative group, the Campaign for California Families. He said Tuesday he was not prepared to issue a ruling, and scheduled another hearing for Friday.



Like the city, conservatives want the two cases consolidated into one, but they want Quidachay to hear it instead of Warren.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

Edited by: Warduke at: 2/19/04 4:54 pm

[cattwoman98111]

I made the mistake of reading some of the replies to San Francisco suing the state over the gay marriage ban on Yahoo. I’m a little pissy right now with the ignorance that is being spewed.





I am so incredibly tempted to call in ill to work tomorrow, fly to SF and marry as many couples as I can! Nothing like a little homophobia to fire me up.