So little interest here in gay marriage...

[Boston Guy]

I've found it interesting over the past couple of weeks how little discussion there has been here regarding gay marriage and the events that have been unfolding in Canada.

 

To me, these events are so significant in terms of basic rights extended to gay men and women that we may well look back in twenty years and view this summer as a kind of watershed. I guess I feel this way because I see Canada's actions as influencing other countries, especially those in Europe and in the British Commonwealth. I also think -- perhaps optimistically -- that US attitudes are going to be shaped by living next door to happily married gay couples whose very existence doesn't cause the wrath of God to rain down and wreak havoc on Canada and its religions.

 

Further, I think the decision to accept gay marriage in Canada may well affect the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision regarding the same and potentially could be the reason why the expected US Supreme Court's decision regarding the Texas case has been delayed.

 

Looking down the road, there will be a significant number of US gay couples who go to Canada and get married and come home. We can be sure that the following demand for recognition of these marriages on the local, state and federal level will lead to court challenges. That could lead to an expansion of gay rights in the US or a backlash and an erosion of rights through passage of some kind of anti-gay constitutional amendment -- either of which would be important to most of the people here.

 

Since I see this as being without question the biggest gay rights story to come along in years, I've been surprised to see virtually no discussion of it at M4M. Even if folks here have somehow self-selected away from interest in marriage, I would have thought that the potential for impact on basic human rights for gay people would have been something people wanted to talk about.

 

Since that hasn't happened, I'm sort of curious why.

 

BG

[Guest drock56]

Why so little interest in gay marriage? Because it's a bunch

of bogus bullshit..it's a scarcely working institution for

hets and is likely to be even less so, were gays given the

opportunity (all ready "divorces" from Vermont legal unions

are beginning to crop up).

 

It's bogus because it diverts attention from some real problems:

how about AIDS and the horrendous suicide rate among gay teens?

Gay groups are spending lots of time, energy, and dollars so they

can ape straights...that's why most sensible gay men have so little

interest in it.

[Luv2play]

I beg to differ with your assessment of the issue of gay marriage. For one, I think it is a tremendous change in our lives. I only regret that as a late middle-aged man, I will not benefit from it. Not only that, I think that if gays had been accepted as equals when I was young, my life would have taken a different path.

 

I don't know if the changes we are now seeing in Canada will spread elsewhere, particularly the US. All I know is that here in Canada gays have advanced to a position in society where they will no longer have to settle for second class status. When you think what that means for just everyday living, it boggles the mind. I don't think it has really sunk in yet for a lot of people, especially gays. But if we represent 10 percent of the population (or even only 5 percent), it is every bit as radical as the Equal Rights Amendment was in the US 40 years ago.

 

But even with the blacks in America, equality was not won overnight. The struggle continues today. For gays, when two gay men (or women) can walk down ANY street in Canada and hold hands, and kiss as they part, without a ripple of reaction from the straight world, then we will have achieved true equality. We're not there yet. But we're on our way!

 

[Guest alanm]

"I don't think it's sunk in yet for a lot of people, especially gays."

 

Exactly.

 

Court decision, especially those in Canada not the United States, seem

far removed from most people's every day life. I took a lot of constitutional law classes in college and grad school, but I don't

remember fully understanding the impact Roe v. Wade would have on American culture that day 30 years ago when I read about the decision while backpacking around Europe.

[OneFinger]

>Why so little interest in gay marriage? Because it's a bunch of bogus bullshit..

 

I have personally never understood the need that many people have for external validation. I don't need someone to make gay marraiges legal for me and I would realize no benefit from it since I'm single.

 

But, on the other side of the coin, I know several gays in the military. Their "significant other" does not get the same rights as a hetro couple. That has serious implications when it comes to benefits.

 

There is discrimination in the workplace and it is NOT a level playing field. For that reason I say gay marriages should be legalized. But, it's just not an issue that affects me personally so I don't get my shorts in a bunch over it.

[Rick Munroe]

>It's bogus because it diverts attention from some real

>problems:

>how about AIDS and the horrendous suicide rate among gay

>teens?

 

That's a naive attitude. I suppose you also think the civil rights movement diverted attention away from sickle cell anemia, and the women's movement took attention away from breast cancer. :+ Anyway, AIDS is no longer a gay plague, and the gay teen suicide rate will decrease as society changes its attitude towards us. Granting our relationships equal status is a major step in that direction.

 

>Gay groups are spending lots of time, energy, and dollars so

>they

>can ape straights...that's why most sensible gay men have so

>little

>interest in it.

 

If it's "aping straights" to want equality & to have our relationships legally recognized, then I'll make like Roddy McDowall & put on my ape suit. I don't need to have the government declare that my marriage to Derek is relevant, but I want to be the one to make that decision. By the way, Boston Guy, I'm very excited about this; I've just been away on vacation. ;-)

[+ Hoover42]

I'm past the marrying age, I don't think anyone would want me.

[Guest fukamarine]

>

>Since I see this as being without question the biggest gay

>rights story to come along in years, I've been surprised to

>see virtually no discussion of it at M4M.

 

>Since that hasn't happened, I'm sort of curious why.

 

If I may be so bold to say so, it's probably because the greater percentage of members on this board are Americans - and this is happening in a foreign country - Canada.

 

It has long been no secret that most Americans are not overly knowledgable about the citizens of that country north of their border and tend to discount what happens here. After all there are only about 30 million people there - about 1/10th of the population of the great U.S.of A., so why bother. Let them live in their igloos and tee-pees.

 

And as for the members who have posted that they are not interested in apeing the hetro lifestyle - have no wish to get married and prefer to be single, let me say they are very shortsighted.

 

Gay marriage to me is not about a commitment of love to you life partner. You can do that without a marriage license and a "wedding". What it does mean is that finally, gays who choose to live together with their partner will have, among other things, the same financial protection as straights.

 

Presently if I were to die all the monies within my RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Plan) would become taxable at a rate of 50%, immediately upon my demise. My partner would only end up with the remaining 50% and only if I had willed it to him. Why should a stright's pension funds continue to be paid to a spouse to assist their living expenses but a gays is cut in half. Equitable? I think not.

 

Consider the case of a gay couple, one of which becomes terminally ill and ends up in intensive care. The partner has no legal right to be allowed to visit him (or her) and if the dying one's parents happen to disaprove of their relationship - well good luck - all hell can break loose.

 

Why shouldn't we be able to obtain the same status as hetros with regards to filing our income tax returns. If only one is working, why shouldn't the other one be able to declare their partner as a dependent.

 

I could go on & on, but i'm sure you get the drift.............

 

And as for the ones who don't care because they are single - or feel too old to ever meet someone and form a relationship - I feel truly sorry for you. It must be terrible to have convinced yourself that there will never be anyone who will come along and let you share your life with them. That to me is a fate worse than death.

 

fukamarine

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>To me, these events are so significant in terms of basic

>rights extended to gay men and women that we may well look

>back in twenty years and view this summer as a kind of

>watershed.

 

I'm sure some here will find the following statment controversial as would many more in the general public but I find this occurence in Canadian politics/justice will be on par with Brown vs. the Board of Education. There are differences for sure, but in the end the highest court in Canada has overturned standing custom and law to extend fundamental rights to a disenfranchised group. The national government faced the same choice to stand by custom and go against the court therby weakening it as an institution or move to establish equal rights in the face of significant opposition. A big difference was that this transpired with much less violence than that the preceded (and followed) Brown.

 

 

I guess I feel this way because I see Canada's

>actions as influencing other countries, especially those in

>Europe and in the British Commonwealth.

 

Possibly. It is harder to dismiss a cousin as raving lunatic than a acquaintance or stranger. Yet I don't see Britain or Australia following suit in the immediate future.

 

I also think --

>perhaps optimistically -- that US attitudes are going to be

>shaped by living next door to happily married gay couples

>whose very existence doesn't cause the wrath of God to rain

>down and wreak havoc on Canada and its religions.

>

 

I think you are being optimistic. This is an example of the tail wagging the dog. While those int he US that are gay-tolerant may be on the rise, it hasn't extended to civil uinions and definitely not to marriage. I don't think this will have any large scale effect on public attitudes about gay marriage. I do hope it might have an effect on nine that wear black robes but that will depend on which nine.

 

 

>Further, I think the decision to accept gay marriage in Canada

>may well affect the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision

>regarding the same and potentially could be the reason why the

>expected US Supreme Court's decision regarding the Texas

>case has been delayed.

>

Again, I think you are really overly optimistic here. To think that MA Judicial Supreme Court and especially the Texas Supreme Court would defer judgments to await a Canadian ruling sort of boggles my mind.

 

>Looking down the road, there will be a significant number of

>US gay couples who go to Canada and get married and come home.

 

I doubt it and I hope not. I don't think Canada is likely to allow itself to become a 'gay marriage mill' and to do so would cheapen the meaning of it. I assume Canada will have some real residence requirement separating itself the the Vegas world. I have no idea what the current marriage residence requirement is.

[OneFinger]

>And as for the ones who don't care because they are single - or feel too old to ever meet someone and form a relationship - I feel truly sorry for you. It must be terrible to have convinced yourself that there will never be anyone who will come along and let you share your life with them. That to me is a fate worse than death.

 

fukamarine,

 

I clearly understand your arguments on gay marriages and don't disagree with most points. But you've clearly offended me by your presumption that my life is less-than-fulfilled because I'm single. I certainly don't need you feeling sorry for me because I don't feel sorry for myself. I live a very full and wonderful life without having a live-in partner.

 

You may consider it a fate worse than death but, please, don't force that personal value on me. I would truly feel that most gays would understand about diversity. We all don't goose step to the same drummer.

[Boston Guy]

TY:

 

>I'm sure some here will find the following statment

>controversial as would many more in the general public but I

>find this occurence in Canadian politics/justice will be on

>par with Brown vs. the Board of Education.

 

Yes. And the same may well be true with the case currently before the US Supreme Court. We'll see next Monday or next Thursday.

 

>Possibly. It is harder to dismiss a cousin as raving lunatic

>than a acquaintance or stranger. Yet I don't see Britain or

>Australia following suit in the immediate future.

 

Perhaps. But, if nothing else, Canada's action will inspire support of legal unions. However, I wouldn't dismiss support and recognition of gay marriage itself spreading through the Commonwealth. And, of course, there will be the question of recognition of Canadian gay marriages in other Commonwealth nations.

 

>I think you are being optimistic. This is an example of the

>tail wagging the dog. While those int he US that are

>gay-tolerant may be on the rise, it hasn't extended to civil

>uinions and definitely not to marriage. I don't think this

>will have any large scale effect on public attitudes about gay

>marriage.

 

Ummm... I respectfully disagree. It will be harder and harder for the religious right to use the "doom and gloom, the heavens will fall and marriage for everyone will fall apart" arguments as Canada demonstrates in real life and living color that the opposite is true.

 

>>Further, I think the decision to accept gay marriage in

>Canada

>>may well affect the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision

>>regarding the same and potentially could be the reason why

>the

>>expected US Supreme Court's decision regarding the Texas

>>case has been delayed.

>>

>Again, I think you are really overly optimistic here. To

>think that MA Judicial Supreme Court and especially the Texas

>Supreme Court would defer judgments to await a Canadian ruling

>sort of boggles my mind.

>

 

Here's an article from the Internation Herald Tribune that discusses this issue in relation to the US Supreme Court:

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/99970.html

 

Still others have discussed whether or not the Massachusetts Court will be affected by decisions elsewhere and the same question has arisen regarding the case in New Jersey. Decisions made at the level of supreme courts are not made in a vacuum and it is not unusual at all for justices to take into account legal activity occurring elsewhere, including in other nations.

 

 

>>Looking down the road, there will be a significant number of

>>US gay couples who go to Canada and get married and come

>home.

>

>I doubt it and I hope not. I don't think Canada is likely to

>allow itself to become a 'gay marriage mill' and to do so

>would cheapen the meaning of it. I assume Canada will have

>some real residence requirement separating itself the the

>Vegas world. I have no idea what the current marriage

>residence requirement is.

>

>

 

The press has been full of examples to the contrary already. Roughly 25% of the couples who have married in Ontario already are American. And, trust me, they are not going to go up there and get married and then come back and just ignore the certificate.

 

Canada has NO residency requirement and NO waiting period. You can go up, pay the fee, get the license and immediately get married in the chapel in the room next door. Here's a link:

 

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/article-34609.html

 

This article discusses some of the numbers:

 

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251834428&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

 

 

Here's another article suggesting a possible ramification in Vermont:

 

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=1321833&nav=4QcSGQ6Z

 

 

And, just for balance, here's an article from a Christian journal expressing their fears:

 

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/03a/20030618a.shtml

 

BG

[VaHawk]

>After all there

>are only about 30 million people there - about 1/10th of the

>population of the great U.S.of A., so why bother. Let them

>live in their igloos and tee-pees.

 

And some people call us "ugly Americans". This statement makes you sound like an "ugly Canadian".

>

>And as for the ones who don't care because they are single -

>or feel too old to ever meet someone and form a relationship -

>I feel truly sorry for you. It must be terrible to have

>convinced yourself that there will never be anyone who will

>come along and let you share your life with them. That to me

>is a fate worse than death.

 

IMO, this is the not the most tactfully stated, but I agree with the point that you are never too old to meet and form a relationship with someone and I don't know why anyone would feel that way. I think some people will read this as a criticism of a choice to not partner rather than what I believe is a criticism of a negative attitude about being too old.

 

But other than this I have to agree with what you say (now there's a shock, huh?). However, I would caution that it is not all the proverbial bed of roses, as there are some thorns also. Given the mortality rate of gay male relationships, why would any gay man rush into marriage, like so many heterosexual couples do? Would alimony be involved?, child support?, prenuptial agreements? Sounds like a real potential financial boon to attorneys.

 

As far as BG feeling that it would lead to greater acceptance of gays ala the Civil Rights bill, I'm not so sure about that. Jasper Texas ring a bell? Just because something is legal does not mean it is going to change the basic opinion of people in general. Isn't abortion legal here in the U.S.? Aren't the anti-abortionists still protesting, blocking abortion clinics and killing doctors who are performing abortions?

 

As to the lack of response, I feel this thread will get more responses than the original thread. Perhaps the lack of interest is due in some part to the fact that many of the posters are bisexuals who are already married to women?

[Boston Guy]

> and

>the gay teen suicide rate will decrease as society changes its

>attitude towards us.

 

That would be my hope.

 

>If it's "aping straights" to want equality & to have our

>relationships legally recognized, then I'll make like Roddy

>McDowall & put on my ape suit. I don't need to have the

>government declare that my marriage to Derek is relevant, but

>I want to be the one to make that decision. By the way,

>Boston Guy, I'm very excited about this; I've just been

>away on vacation. ;-)

 

Then I'm glad you're back.

 

BG

[Trixie]

Why so little interest in the issue of gay marriage here? Well, it is a terribly important topic. But really, this is a website dedicated to the issues of hookers and johns, children! And those hookers, bless their hearts, are expensive enough without entertaining the thought of marrying them. There are plenty of other sites on the net for gay people of all kinds to discuss world events...

we come here, mainly, to discuss good lays.

I don't mean to sound blunt, and certainly one is free to post about anything on his mind. I'm merely suggesting this as a reason why socio-political posts don't generate the feedback one might hope for.

Trixie

[Boston Guy]

>If I may be so bold to say so, it's probably because the

>greater percentage of members on this board are Americans -

>and this is happening in a foreign country - Canada.

>

 

I think you have a point. I've spent a fair amount of time in Canada (visited every province except the new one, most of them many times) and have been frustrated time and time again when my friends were unaware of important issues of concern in Canada. This has been true for even those friends who are news-junkies.

 

But then again, I'm one who thinks that most Americans don't know enough about what is really going on in our own country, much less our neighbor to the north. I wish it were otherwise, but people are busy and only have so much time to concentrate on things outside their own lives.

 

Certainly, this issue has resulted in more coverage of a Canadian issue in the US news (including radio and TV) than any issue I can think of recently... except maybe those darn Canadian air masses that are always responsible for chilling us New Englanders.

 

>Why shouldn't we be able to obtain the same status as hetros

>with regards to filing our income tax returns. If only one is

>working, why shouldn't the other one be able to declare their

>partner as a dependent.

>

 

Exactly... it's a matter of basic rights.

 

>And as for the ones who don't care because they are single -

>or feel too old to ever meet someone and form a relationship -

>I feel truly sorry for you. It must be terrible to have

>convinced yourself that there will never be anyone who will

>come along and let you share your life with them. That to me

>is a fate worse than death.

>

>fukamarine

 

Well, different strokes and all that. My married friends (gay and straight) don't seem to have any lock on happiness and some of them are downright miserable. On the other hand, I think it's nice to be optimistic, at any age. The world is full of wonderful stories of people falling in love at all sorts of "old" ages.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

NY Times calls for US recognition

 

In an editorial today, The NY Times called for legal recognition in the US of gays who have married in Canada:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/opinion/19THU1.html

 

In two other articles in today's issue, the Times explores the acceptance of gay marriage as a sign of sweeping social change in Canada

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/international/americas/19CANA.html

 

and the hurdles that US gays who marry in Canada will face upon their return to the US:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/international/americas/19GAYS.html

 

The very fact that these articles are appearing in the Times, liberal though it is, is almost astonishing to me. I never, ever expected these subjects to be discussed seriously at a national level in the US as early as this year.

 

BG

[Chuck50]

HE IS Back we missed you Rick HUGS Chuck

[Guest]

>Why so little interest in gay marriage? Because it's a

>bunch

>of bogus bullshit..it's a scarcely working institution for

>hets and is likely to be even less so, were gays given the

>opportunity (all ready "divorces" from Vermont legal unions

>are beginning to crop up).

 

Marriage is much more than simply a legal validation of a relationship. It comes with all kinds of legal rights. For example, my boyfriend of over a year is a foreigner. If it were legal for us to marry, we would have done so, and his staying in this country would not be an issue. Since we can't marry, he's applied for asylum on the basis of gay persecution. If he loses, he'll have to leave and our relationship cannot continue (he wouldn't even be considered for any other kind of visa for 10 years). Other benefits include social security benefits, not having to pay inheritance taxes, health and other benefits in jobs without domestic partner benefits, health care decision-making in the event one of the partners becomes incapable of making decisions, and so on.

[Guest fukamarine]

>I clearly understand your arguments on gay marriages and don't

>disagree with most points. But you've clearly offended

> me by your presumption that my life is

>less-than-fulfilled because I'm single. I certainly don't need

>you feeling sorry for me because I don't feel sorry for

>myself. I live a very full and wonderful life without having a

>live-in partner.

 

I never meant to offend you - that was not my intention. I used to think the same way as you do. I have no doubt that your life is full, wonderful and satisfactory. But things change sometimes. I never thought that I would want or need a partner. Then one night I was out cruising the local park - you know - just sucking cock and being a complete slut in the bushes - and I met someone, took him home, and literly have never been apart since. I guess what I'm really saying is, don't close doors so tight that they can never be opened. You don't know what life may have in store for you - and it just might be wonderful.

>

>You may consider it a fate worse than death but, please, don't

>force that personal value on me. I would truly feel that most

>gays would understand about diversity. We all don't goose step

>to the same drummer.

 

I'm not forcing anything on you - just expressing my personal point of view.

 

fukamarine

[Guest fukamarine]

>And some people call us "ugly Americans". This statement

>makes you sound like an "ugly Canadian".

 

If that's the way you see me, that's your perogative. But I honestly believe that what I wrote is true. I'm talking about the "Average" American. If you don't fall into that group, better yet still.

 

>>And as for the ones who don't care because they are single -

>>or feel too old to ever meet someone and form a relationship

>-

>>I feel truly sorry for you. It must be terrible to have

>>convinced yourself that there will never be anyone who will

>>come along and let you share your life with them. That to me

>>is a fate worse than death.

>

>IMO, this is the not the most tactfully stated, but I agree

>with the point that you are never too old to meet and form a

>relationship with someone and I don't know why anyone would

>feel that way. I think some people will read this as a

>criticism of a choice to not partner rather than what I

>believe is a criticism of a negative attitude about being too

>old.

 

Tact was never my strong point. But the point I was trying to get across was - keep an open mind and don't be so intranigent as to miss out on what could be a beautiful and rewarding relationship

 

>But other than this I have to agree with what you say (now

>there's a shock, huh?).

 

Just looked out my window and saw some pigs flying by!

 

>However, I would caution that it is

>not all the proverbial bed of roses, as there are some thorns

>also. Given the mortality rate of gay male relationships, why

>would any gay man rush into marriage, like so many

>heterosexual couples do?

 

No one should ever do this hastily - whether straight or gay.

 

>Would alimony be involved?, child support?, prenuptial agreements?

 

I never thought about it but probably all of the above would apply. One can't pick and choose only the good parts and forget about the negatives.

 

fukamarine

[Guest fukamarine]

>Why so little interest in the issue of gay marriage here?

>Well, it is a terribly important topic. But really, this is a

>website dedicated to the issues of hookers and johns,

>children!

 

I must be mistaken - I though the Lounge was a forum to discuss any thing you wanted to.

 

>And those hookers, bless their hearts, are expensive

>enough without entertaining the thought of marrying them.

 

That's funny!

 

fukamarine

[Bilbo]

Relationship Longevity

 

I recently attended the 25th anniversary party of a couple of gay friends of mine. The only thing that made it a first for me was that both of the friends were gay. I have attended the 25th anniversaries of several female couples and even the 35th anniversary of one female couple.

 

My Cub made an interestng faux pas the other everning. I was introducing him to a member of my Mardi Gras Krewe and joked that we have only been together for four and a half years although Maverick keeps telling everyone its been five. Maverick extended the joke by telling everyone that sometimes it feels more like fifteen. Which caused a slightly shocked silence until I told him that of the three male-male couples represented in the room at the moment, we were the only couple who had been together less than eighteen years.

 

I was with my last husband for six years, helping him through what AIDS was in those days. When he died, I couldn't get survivor benefits, and even had to contact his estranged step-mother for permission to bury him the way he had wanted to be.

 

And how long have Rick and Derrek been together? Isn't that a bit amazing for high school sweet hearts, no matter what orientation?

 

Please think twice and bless yourself three times before you fall for the stereotypical hogwash that gay relationships are necessarily shorter than heterosexual ones. :-)

[Bilbo]

After reading that ...

 

over my shoulder, my Cub, Maverick asked me to add that one reason that some gay relationships have been short is because of the societal pressures on them to break up. And that legal marriage might be one way to defuse some of that pressure.

 

BTW, his sisters and mother are urging us to have a holy union. I think they're looking forward to the reception, but they also say we're good for each other. But the Cub doesn't want to seriously have one til its not just religious (MCC) but legal, too.

[+ deej]

RE: NY Times calls for US recognition

 

MSNBC.com ran a story yesterday along the same lines.

 

They also ran a web poll along side asking if gay marriages should be legal. When I looked, there were roughly 4,000 votes cast and 60% were in favor!

[chrismac]

What's Canada?