Jump to content

This is important.


RockHard
This topic is 5211 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

Some of us don't care about the word "marriage." Some of us believe the word "marriage" should be struck from all government documents and replaced with "partnership." The government should be out of the "marriage" business entirely. I believe in the separation of Church and State. Whether straight or gay, government can easily adopt the word "partnership" for all legal unions and those unions could be free of any religious connotation. Let the Churches and Religions of the world have the word "marriage." Nobody has convinced me that the word does not have religious roots. Since most religions believe marriage is a sacred sacrament, it seems stupid, silly, and politically destructive to FORCE any religion to openly accept gay couples at the alter. Religions may come to accept this idea over time. So be it if it ain't in my lifetime.

 

I can't help but think that those silly queens screaming "equality" are just dying to pull one over on the religions of the world and do it through the courts, forcing those religions to abide by man's laws instead of God's. This is not what I call progress. Take the religious word "marriage" out of legal contracts and everyone can be legally equal without disrupting the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

>it seems

>stupid, silly, and politically destructive to FORCE any

>religion to openly accept gay couples at the alter (sic).

 

This ruling in CA does not force any religion to do anything. There is no religious aspect to it; it's a legal contract. I won't be as condescending as you and call you a "silly queen," but really, you're being silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

Rick, you clearly miss the point. Your militant-sounding hysteria is silly. Let me reiterate:

 

I believe "marriage" should NOT represent a "legal" union for any sexual orientation. It is a word used throughout history, most often when referring to the religious sacrament of matrimony. All religions provide a "marriage" ceremony for heterosexual couples (but many rules apply to acquire such a ceremony).

 

It seems to me any court ruling (with the fake claim this somehow makes us equal) that strips the meaning of the word from its religious origins is a petty way to scold the Church and world religions.

 

Religion does evolve but as history teaches us its evolution is extremely slow. I do believe gay marriages should be recognized by the world religions but I also believe those religions should come to terms with such a decision by way of their own evolution. No court of man should dictate the definition of "matrimony" to the world's churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. Such action damages the court, it damages religion, it alienates people, and it's counter productive for gay people.

 

I DO NOT see this as an equality issue for gay people.

 

Gay unions deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual unions. Common Law is a legal term that has nothing to do with religion. Surely our government is capable of a more appropriate term than "marriage" to define legal unions, regardless of sexual orientation and not including religious context. Good luck finding a true leader to take that on.

 

I firmly believe equal legal rights are attainable for gay couples without forcing the hand of any Church or religion and slapping that religion and/or Church in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

"Everything you said is garbage."

 

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You're entitled to yours even if there's no sign of insight and/or intelligence in this one. Your criticism sounds like something from Sean Hannity and it truly pains me to say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confusion of categories

 

>I believe "marriage" should NOT represent a

>"legal" union for any sexual orientation. It is a

>word used throughout history, most often when referring to the

>religious sacrament of matrimony. All religions provide a

>"marriage" ceremony for heterosexual couples (but

>many rules apply to acquire such a ceremony).

>

>It seems to me any court ruling (with the fake claim this

>somehow makes us equal) that strips the meaning of the word

>from its religious origins is a petty way to scold the Church

>and world religions.

 

With respect, I think this is to engage in a confusion of categories. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, hardly a hotbed of liberal views, gives an expansive view of civil marriage, noting that its presence extends to societies that lack anything like Western religious traditions.

 

More to the point, whatever the merits of your notion to replace "marriage" with "partnership" in the eyes (and words) of the law, they strike me as outweighed by how unrealistic it is, and how unlikely of adoption. Especially now that there is real social momentum on the side of expanding civil marriage to include same-sex couples. As noted elsewhere, just today, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned that state's ban on same-sex marriage. Three states is a trend, and then some. (I say "social momentum" not only because of this 3rd turnover, but also because, as Massachusetts citizens have watched same-sex marriage in operation, majority opinion has shifted from against to in favor.)

 

Turning from your specific argument to the general question of "Why not accept the civil-union solution?", I agree civil unions are infinitely better than nothing. But (plagiarizing myself from a post on MER) I see a couple of things they don't do that marriage does.

 

First, the symbolic. Civil unions reek of segregated drinking fountains. I don't see how any such separate-but-equal formulation can escape the pernicious implication that this is a privilege granted, rather than a right asserted.

 

Second, the pragmatic. Civil unions don't engage the federal constitutional guarantees that state-conferred rights are portable throughout the nation, in the way that recognition of marriage rights incontestably historically does. To be sure, we have DOMA despite this. But as I say over and over, it seems inevitable to me that DOMA must sooner or later fall because it violates the full-faith-and-credit clause. And now challenges on due-process grounds are also starting to be conceived.

 

The more states recognize same-sex marriage, the more likely that courts will have the courage to rule the right way as they hear challenges to DOMA and to individual states' refusal to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Confusion of categories

 

Thank you, AdamSmith, for offering real intellectual thought on the subject.

 

"whatever the merits of your notion to replace "marriage" with "partnership" in the eyes (and words) of the law, they strike me as outweighed by how unrealistic it is, and how unlikely of adoption"

 

I agree, my suggestion for the government to change all "legal" reference from "marriage" to "partnership" (it certainly works for business), however smart and simple, is extremely unrealistic and unlikely. Furthermore, you can count on the stupid among heterosexuals going ballistic. Those heterosexuals who view the word "marriage" as government endorsement of their "sacred" relationship would surely feel betrayed.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the term "civil union" and I'm not suggesting these words.

 

I have no plans to stand in the way or criticize U.S. courts who declare same-sex "marriage" as constitutional. I'm not against marriage for gay people. But I do believe there was a smarter, simpler, and less controversial way to handle this issue; a way that respects all parties, doesn't reference a religious sacrament, keeps religion out of government as much as possible, and avoids a bad guys versus good guys or a church versus gay-folk argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are misinformed. In California domestic partners have ALL of the rights and privileges that the state of California guarantees to married couples. However, our Supreme Court said that is not enough and now requires that the "term" marriage has to apply equally to same sex and opposite sex couples. This is not an issue about civil rights. As long as domestic partner and married couples have the same right and privileges in California, why do you have to force the definition of marriage? This is about activist judges who should quit legislating from the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

Rod:

 

What "civil right" that is granted married couples in the state of California is NOT granted to Domestic Partners? (I am not taliking about Federal rights.) Get your facts straight dude . . . even if you are a damn hot masseur!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? What have you actually staked on the defeat of this amendment? You should be fighting another battle. The CA legislature has alread granted gay couples he same rights and privileges as married couple through the domestic partnership laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argos, perhaps this portion of today's ruling in CT will enlighten you as to the separate-but-equal aspect:

 

[blockquote]Especially in light of the long and undisputed history of invidious discrimination that gay persons have suffered; we cannot discount the plaintiffs’ assertion that the legislature, in establishing a statutory scheme consigning same sex couples to civil unions, has relegated them to an inferior status, in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage. In other words, ‘‘by excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the state declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.’’

 

Although the legislature has determined that same sex couples are entitled to ‘‘all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities . . . that are granted to spouses in a marriage’’; General Statutes § 46b-38nn; the legislature nonetheless created an entirely separate and distinct legal entity for same sex couples even though it readily could have made those same rights available to same sex couples by permitting them to marry. In view of the exalted status of marriage in our society, it is hardly surprising that civil unions are perceived to be inferior to marriage. We therefore agree with the plaintiffs that ‘‘maintaining a second-class citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them from the institution of civil marriage is the constitutional infirmity at issue.’’ Accordingly, we reject the trial court’s conclusion that marriage and civil unions are ‘‘separate’’ but ‘‘equal’’ legal entities; and that it therefore ‘‘would be the elevation of form over substance’’; to conclude that the constitutional rights of same sex couples are implicated by a statutory scheme that restricts them to civil unions. Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means ‘‘equal.’’ As we have explained, the former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not. Even though the classifications created under our statutory scheme result in a type of differential treatment that generally may be characterized as symbolic or intangible, this court correctly has stated that such treatment nevertheless ‘‘is every bit as

restrictive as naked exclusions’’; because it is no less real than more

tangible forms of discrimination, at least when, as in the present case, the statute singles out a group that historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance, ridicule or worse.[/blockquote]

 

And Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund stated in its amicus brief:

 

[blockquote]‘‘Any married couple (reasonably) would feel that they had lost something precious and irreplaceable if the government were to tell them that they no longer were ‘married’ and instead were in a ‘civil union.’ The sense of being ‘married’ -- what this conveys to a couple and their community, and the security of having others clearly understand the fact of their marriage and all it signifies -- would be taken from them. These losses are part of what same sex couples are denied when government assigns them a ‘civil union’ status. If the tables were turned, very few heterosexuals would countenance being told that they could enter only civil unions and that marriage is reserved for lesbian and gay couples. Surely there is a constitutional injury when the majority imposes on the minority that which it would not accept for itself.’’[/blockquote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> This is about activist judges who should quit legislating from the bench.

 

Yeah, God forbid someone should defend the constitution. You know ... that little thing ratified BY THE PEOPLE.

 

You can call it "legislating from the bench" and those are indeed big badass burn-your-butt-cheeks scary words, but they're also as much a lie as "The check is in the mail" or "I won't cum in your mouth" or "I said no thanks to that bridge to nowhere".

 

The constitution says marriage is a right available to all. The court upheld the constitution.

 

If any legislation was involved, it was involved when the constitution was written and ratified BY THE PEOPLE. The bench did its job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Here, we argue and bicker"

 

I am surprised also by the many different opinions on this subject.

 

This forum has always been a place for differing opinions, but, as gay men, one would think that we would agree on the merits of gay marriage.

 

Is it possible that older gays (and younger gays as well) see things moving too fast to the point that they are left behind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Is it possible that older gays (and younger gays as well) see

>things moving too fast to the point that they are left behind?

 

Not an attractive thought, but I will voice it anyway: What is the gay equivalent for "Uncle Tom"?

 

When I read of the Connecticut decision, I could not stop thinking of this image:

 

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Vlr2rj9glJ0/SI4wpeJKeQI/AAAAAAAADP8/YXhmNSqGIEk/DSCN4033.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tuesclavo

>>Is it possible that older gays (and younger gays as well)

>see

>>things moving too fast to the point that they are left

>behind?

>

>Not an attractive thought, but I will voice it anyway: What is

>the gay equivalent for "Uncle Tom"?

>

Aunt Mary?

 

In any event, I'm with Rick and the other silly queens on this. I made a sizable (well, on my budget) donation to no on 8. To get refunded if 8 passes, i insured my donation with a credit default swap backed by AIG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

>What "civil right" that is granted married couples

>in the state of California is NOT granted to Domestic

>Partners? (I am not taliking about Federal rights.) Get your

 

Don't try to rationalize it: Marriage itself is a civil right.

 

Domestic Partnership is an obfuscated, but obvious, form of Separate But Equal policy. "Separate But Equal" was not OK for nonwhites "then", and IS not acceptable for non-heterosexuals today.

 

Fully integrated civil rights for all civilians, nothing less!

 

>facts straight dude . . . even if you are a damn hot masseur!

 

and thank you for the "hot", but I'm more an escort than Masseur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may regret chiming in on this one, but here goes.

 

Personally, I don't think the government has any business getting in the marriage business. BUT, it does. And laws exist that codify legal rights based on marriage (tax laws, property (inheritance) laws, and custodial laws, etc.) Since the later exists, it is only appropriate that those laws be applied w/o prejudice.

 

I know it has been argued by many that marriage is a civil right - but it is not called out specifically as a right in the US constitution - State constitutions may or may not designate it as a right, but I believe most do not specifically designate it as a right. BUT, most state constitutions do state under the law, everyone is equal, regardless of what institutions they belong to.

 

Now, why is what is happening in CA so important? Unlike the courts making a decision, the statewide proposition speaks to the will of the people. A favorable result will carry more weight in public opinion than what the courts have decided as just judicial interpretation. Winning the proposition will put to rest (at least in CA) that the marriage laws extension gays is more than just a court gone awry. Winning the proposition will propel the movement much further than the court actions in CA, MA, CT, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: This is important? Not really.

 

You are saying it is all in the word-- "marriage." Any couple has the right to call their "union" a "marriage." Where is that "civil right" guaranteed in the California or United States constitutions? And I have been to you for a massage . . . it was excellent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick - Thanks for surfacing this topic.

 

When I saw Markos' post I sent a bunch of money to the No on Prop 8 campaign - via Act Blue. Personally, I don't have any hope I'll ever find someone I'd want to marry. However, this is about more than my personal situation. It's about the legal status of gay couples. It's also about allowing one large institution to use their money to impose their "religious" based will on others.

 

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, we're totally fucked if we don't step up to the plate now and give whatever we can. Tell everyone you know. Things are not looking good right now.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/9/16478/0653/30/625443

 

Markos (who is straight) says:

 

[blockquote]I don't think this can be stated strongly enough -- if this amendment passes, the cause of marriage equality will be set back decades. There's a reason the Mormon Church and "family values" groups are investing everything they can into this thing -- if they stop gay marriage in California, they halt all momentum earned the past few years. And right now, they've outraised the good guys by about $10 million.

 

Let me also say this -- while small donations are important and help, that's a large deficit to close in a few weeks (people will start voting soon, I got my absentee ballot a few minutes ago). The "no" side has to have a major infusion of cash in the next week or two, and by "major", I mean four-, five-,six- and seven-figure donations, all allowed under state law.

 

Yes, this is a battle for universal human rights, but ultimately, it directly affects just the LGBT community. Since it has the most to gain, and the most to lose, the burden of this battle falls on their backs. And while lots of people -- straight and gay -- have stepped up to fight for what's right, many of the wealthiest gays and lesbians in this country have sat on the sidelines, complacent and aloof.

 

...right now, according to the "Vote No on Prop 8" campaign, only 30,000 individuals have contributed to the effort, despite there being tens of millions of LGBT in the country. And if the LGBT community won't stand up for its own rights, why should anyone else?

 

...if you know anyone that can write the big checks, please make some calls.[/blockquote]

 

Guys, please do what you can. I just gave more here: http://noonprop8.com/home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

The problem with leaving it to the people to decide by their vote is that "the people" should not have the power to decide who is not to be treated equally.

 

If it was left to the people, black would not be using the same public bathrooms as whites and women would not be voting anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...