Constitutional Amendment -- Really?

[billvon 3,107]

>But, they still fall outside the MODEL of a marriage.

I agree there, but I'm not really advocating gay marriage. I am advocating gay civil unions, which is just a legal term conferring certain rights on a couple. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the ceremony of marriage, however it is performed. Or kids, or sex, or really anything other than civil rights. All those things are up to the individuals involved.

>So we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not
> forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay
> couple, wanting to marry like a straight one.

>Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style?

How would two men in Kansas getting "united" or whatever you want to call it change your upcoming marriage one little bit? I can't really believe in the "if you let _them_ into our club, it will ruin the club" angle, which I've heard a few other people espouse. Marriage will continue to mean what it always has i.e. what the couple _thinks_ it means.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Ok...but what benefit to society is derived by banning gay marriage that doesn't have to do with offending someone's religious sensibilities?

I have no clue whatsoever. But, clearly, the policymakers think there is one.

Oh, Justice Brown. I'll quote Don McLean.

"They wouldn't listen, they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will..."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[goose491 0]

Quote

Ok...but what benefit to society is derived by banning gay marriage that doesn't have to do with offending someone's religious sensibilities?

Ok... but why would you tokenly toss 'religous sensibilities' away like they don't matter? Especially considering the number of people that DO see marriage as a highly religious ceremony and a "union under god" ?

I mean, what do you tell those people?

That's really the reason I suggest a new type of union. Let's not kid ourselves, homosexuality may have been around ever since there was life on the planet... but it's only now becoming socially acceptable on this large a scale. There should be something NEW and Exiting to mark a new era.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Nightingale 0]

because religious sensibilities are irrelevant when it comes to legal status. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. period.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ok... but why would you tokenly toss 'religous sensibilities' away like they don't matter?

Because the constitution says that no law shall be made that establishes a religion or lends more credence to one religion over another.

Quote

I mean, what do you tell those people?

I tell those people to continue having their religious ceremonies however they want, and to ignore things that have nothing to do with them.

[goose491 0]

Quote

Quote

So we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one.

Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style?

There are a few states now where gay couples can get married, and have. What have you had to alter to accomadate that?

Me? Nothing.. as I said, I'm not married.

Married people, may have to change their view of the institution they form a part of. If I was married, and beleived a marriage is between a man and a woman... then I would have to change my view.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Treejumps 0]

I was not suggesting that the only reason for people to marry is to have kids, however, that is a primary basis for it. We're not talking about traditional marriages, so a biological/medical problem that prevents having children clearly would not, nor has it ever restricted marriage.

If civil unions will make the gay community happy, I'm OK with that. But that is what it is; a civil union.

[Nightingale 0]

oh...

so as long as a family appears to fit your definition of "normal" they're okay, then?

[billvon 3,107]

>Married people, may have to change their view of the institution they
> form a part of. If I was married, and beleived a marriage is between
> a man and a woman... then I would have to change my view.

People have had to do that a lot lately. "To honor and obey?" Gone. Woman always takes the man's name? Gone. Woman gets automatic custody? Gone. Man always works, woman tends house and pops out the kids? Gone. And all those actually _affect_ people getting married, whereas allowing gay civil unions would not.

[goose491 0]

Quote

because religious sensibilities are irrelevant when it comes to legal status. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. period.

Sounds good. (Other than the fact that we've already stepped in that pile a long time ago. When in was declared that a couple could be married by the state and not a church.)

lol. "Religious sensibilities are irrelevant when it comes to a religious ceremony that the state has decided to perform." doesn't sound as cool though.

But anyway, if common law couples got exactly the same benefits as truly married ones did... Would gays still be pushing for the right to be married? I think so.

Common law couples almost do get the same rights. And fighting to obtain the remaining ones, imho, would be less of a battle then fighting for the right to be married. So why isn't that what's in the press? Because it's not as dramatic... it's doesn't seem as oppresive.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Chute 0]

And if that's not bad enough . .

Quote

The president also said he doesn't watch reality television, but the Bushes both watch lots of sports on television and are hoping to see the movies "Something's Gotta Give" and "Elf" over the holidays.

The man has really bad taste in movies.

[Treejumps 0]

As of right now, there is no state that will issue a marriage license to a gay couple. One court has ruled that the laws must be changed in 120 days so that they can, but that war is far from over.

While I have not had to alter any part of my life because of all of this, that day is coming. WHen I have kids and they attend a school with a child with 2 daddys and I have to explain that to my kids- well lets just say that I will make sure that I never have to face that.

I would have to modify my will to expressly forbid my children to ever have legal guardians who were same sex in the event of mine and my wife's passing.

These are only a couple things that come to mind, but they are the kind of issues I shouldn't have to worry about.

Edited top add: I knew this was a waste of time. Reminds me of the recent repost of "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics....". You know the rest. Cya

[Nightingale 0]

if there were no legal priveledges and protections that went along with marriage, and it was completely a religious issue, then gay couples would be bothering their churches. Since the government has made "marriage" confer a certain legal status to make decisions for one's partner in certain situations, and obtain certain benefits such as health care and child custody, the government has created two separate issues. A religious marriage and a secular one.

My solution: Call ANY non-religious, court performed marriage a "civil union" and let any two consenting adults participate. Let "marriage" be a term for a union performed by a religious official, and the folks who choose "marriage" would still need a "civil" ceremony to obtain the legal status. Church and state remain appropriately separate, so liberals can't gripe, and "marriage" remains "protected" and churches remain free to discriminate as they see fit, so conservatives can't complain either.

[wmw999 2,583]

Quote

While I have not had to alter any part of my life because of all of this, that day is coming. WHen I have kids and they attend a school with a child with 2 daddys and I have to explain that to my kids- well lets just say that I will make sure that I never have to face that.

If you had kids, they very possibly would already have friends who had two daddies (or, more likely, two mommies -- and I'll bet most people find that less distasteful for no particularly good reason). It's just that the parents have to teach their children to lie and hide what their family is like. Now there's family values!

You can ground your children in what you think is important. It's much better to point them towards things than away from them. Really. If you're a devout bonk-bonkist, then bring them up in the religion, and tell them why it's good. Don't tell them that people who aren't bonk-bonks are bad -- someday they'll discover that they aren't all bad.

And some day the protected children might discover that their friends do have two daddies, and that they bring better cookies to school, too.

And if you're hoping that this means your kids will never grow up to be homosexual, well, it's not something you choose from what I hear. Would you really your kids (and I don't mean you in particular, since you don't have kids) grew up to be unhappy heterosexually married people than happy, fulfilled partners in a gay relationship? Whose life is it, anyway?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

WHen I have kids and they attend a school with a child with 2 daddys and I have to explain that to my kids- well lets just say that I will make sure that I never have to face that.

That is already a possibility. There are plenty of gay fathers and mothers out there that have custody of their children.

Quote

I would have to modify my will to expressly forbid my children to ever have legal guardians who were same sex in the event of mine and my wife's passing.

You would have to do that now. Gay couples are allowed to adopt and be foster parents.

Quote

These are only a couple things that come to mind, but they are the kind of issues I shouldn't have to worry about.

You already have to worry about these things if they concern you. Giving legal standing to relationships that already exist anyway, won't make a difference.

[Nightingale 0]

You're going to have to explain not only the "birds and the bees" but the "birds and the birds" and the "bees and the bees" anyway.

If you have children they will have eyes. Eventually, they will observe a healthy, un-closeted homosexual couple holding hands, and they will question you about it. And later on, should they find themselves in a situation where they question their own sexuality, they will remember your response to them years ago. That response could make the difference between your child having an open conversation with you, and your child committing suicide because he or she fears they will never be accepted by you for who they are.

[goose491 0]

Quote

My solution: Call ANY non-religious, court performed marriage a "civil union" and let any two consenting adults participate. Let "marriage" be a term for a union performed by a religious official, and the folks who choose "marriage" would still need a "civil" ceremony to obtain the legal status. Church and state remain appropriately separate, so liberals can't gripe, and "marriage" remains "protected" and churches remain free to discriminate as they see fit, so conservatives can't complain either.

Kris, I could kiss ya! (but not marry you )

This isn't far from my concept... it's much more feasible though I think.

In the states eyes, two consenting adults in "civil union" would mean the same as a man and woman in "marriage". They can be treated the same pollitically. However, to both couples, their union is still specific/tailored/special to them.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Michele 1]

Curious as to the other candidates' position on gay marriage? Anyone know?

Leiberman is against it, according to an interveiw I just heard...but anywhere does it state who has been for/against it?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

Quote

Curious as to the other candidates' position on gay marriage? Anyone know?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/elec04.prez.dems.gay.marriage/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.civil.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Thanks, quade.

From the first link:

"Indeed, of the nine candidates running for the Democratic nomination, six say they do not support gay marriage -- Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and the front-runner, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.

Only three are on record supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Sen. Carole Moseley Braun of Illinois. All three are considered long shots for the nomination."

So, it would seem that most candidates are against GL marriages, whereas they *may* support civil unions, and would leave it to the state to make that particular decision.

That's interesting. The only three who are for full marriage rights for same sex couples do not have a chance in hell of winning the primaries, let alone the election.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

You also have to check out the second link which helps clarify things a bit. Although most are against "gay marriage" almost all are for a "civil union" which would be functionally the same thing minus the religious connotation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

I did read the second link. I found it fairly biased, though, and went with the first basically because the position on civil unions was better described therein, and easier to read.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~