Maine vote

I don't understand either. It seems some people are just too prickly, too easily bothered by differences. You see it here on the lounge, with quick retorts to perceived slights, stubborn grudges, etc. Some here are accepting, for others it's their way or the highway. It's sad, interesting, and reassuring because often the people who seem to us too narrow and rigid in some discussions can be so generous, open and helpful in others.

Absolutely agree.

But we have grown a breed of American that loves to cherish its bigotry -- cloaking it in pseudo-legalistic jargon (no, civil union is NOT the same thing - if it were, you married heterosexual reactionaries would have had a civil union yourselves) in order to sound as if they have a direct, private line to the Righteousness Certifiers. Apparently, if you're deeply religious, you now throw away faith, hope, and charity, replacing them with obsessive hatred metastacizing into every political arena.

With you, JEStraveler, I ask: what's it TO these self-appointed mullahs?

I understand people have certain personal thoughts about gays. What I don't understand is how religious beliefs can impact secular life for citizens who don't prescribe to a certain religious belief. If a church doesn't want to marry gays - fine. But the state should be free of religious dogma.
The state should not support a bias based on a religion. We should have a separation of church and state.

Like you all, I am not happy with the results of the Maine election or the Governor's race here in VA. I'm cynical and jaded this morning.

nanabee, I agree with you 200%. That was the one of the fundamental beliefs upon which our country was founded. What happened along the way???

It'll be interesting to see if they try to force it to a vote here as soon as they can. I think there was a time restraint where it can't be on our ballot until next November. Hopefully by then people will realize that the world hasn't imploded and simply leave it alone.

If Iowa can have gay marriage and continue with our lives just fine, I don't see why other states can't do it too. A neighbors gay marriage has absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. They can live together, raise kids together, go through all of their lives in what would essentially be a commonlaw marriage in a hetero couple, yet people seem to think that giving them a certificate will break down marriage? I think they should be more worried about people who get married and divorced 3 times than about gays getting married.

I don't understand the constant need to regulate someone elses life. I don't care what religion you practice (or don't practice), who you love and/or sleep with, what political party you vote for, etc. Don't hurt other people with your choices and I really don't care what you do. Why does there need to be legislation that says "I don't agree with your lifestyle so you can't do it"??

Why can't we split up religious marriages and legal marriages? If you want to have a religious ceremony, you can as long as you follow that religions rules. If you want to have a legal recognition, you can have that too or otherwise. Any two adults should be able to go to a justice of the peace and be legally married.

>What I don't understand is how religious beliefs can impact secular life for citizens who don't prescribe to a certain religious belief.<<

Nanabee, I so completely agree!!

I'm a little surprised by the vote. However, I question the OP's comment that there is a movement "against" gay marriage. Fundamentally, the movement is toward or "for" gay marriage, i.e. a change in historic policy.

Good bad or otherwise, gay marriage proponents have a burden of selling their position and motivate people toward changing a historic policy/law. That takes a lot of effort in any situation. Too often we see a bible versus "bigot" debate, and I'm not sure that is very effective.

Since when did anyone care what the voters think? Cheer up. The courts will give you everything you want and more.

Personally, I think laws should pass when there is a need for one rather than passing it based on "why not?". I think gays need marriage like children need candy, cell phones or video games - they want it but they hardly need it.

I'm more concerned about churches who marry gays than civil ceremonies but marriage isn't an American institution, it's part of human civilization and it's built on children needing committed parents.

If anything, America has perverted the concept of marriage through infidelity, divorce, remarriage, living together and choosing not to have children so no one can even remember what marriage is or was. Ironically, young heterosexuals don't believe they need marriage yet homosexuals insist they do. I guess it's just me but that seems exactly backwards.

bdj- well you do have a point - i've always said why ruin a good relationship by getting married
but the fundamental question is why shouldn't gays have the right if they want to marry and raise children?

"Personally, I think laws should pass when there is a need for one rather than passing it based on "why not?". I think gays need marriage like children need candy, cell phones or video games - they want it but they hardly need it."

Now I understand..sadly. But where to begin?

Yes, the marraige ban narrowly passed only because it was an off, off-year election.

Polls showed most Maine residents were in favor or indifferent re. allowing gay marraige, but were simply not that fired up about it enough to vote in an odd-numbered year.

Whereas those who are opposed are VERY opposed and motivated to go to the polls to stop it.

I suspect that if the ballot initiative had been in a Presidential election year, you would have seen a different result.

"Yes, the marraige ban narrowly passed only because it was an off, off-year election.

Polls showed most Maine residents were in favor or indifferent re. allowing gay marraige, but were simply not that fired up about it enough to vote in an odd-numbered year."

Most assuredly.

Voter apathy is an American trademark. Similar to divorce rates and the inability to perform long division.

We all know gay marriage (if enacted) will cause straights to get divorced.

I think it is so sad that this is even an issue. Why should people be denied the right to marry someone they love just because they are gay? And Bjb - being married does matter. In many states the right to inherit, make medical decisions, etc. . . is only allowed for a spouse, not a partner. I am assuming you are married and that being married is a meaningful, spiritual covenant for you and your spouse. What gives you the right to decide that same covenant should be withheld from others or that "they don't need it?"

I feel like this is similar to the civil rights movement in the 1960's - it is unfathomable to me how people could have argued against civil rights and equality for all people back then. It boggles my mind to think that not too long ago segregation was was the norm. Thank goodness we have come a long way since then. Hopefully with each generation the lines will become less and less noticeable and acceptance of everyone - regardless of race, religion and/or sexual orientation - will become more and more the norm.

I think that in the not so distant future we will look back as a nation and be ashamed at our country's lack of open mindedness and our discrimination against gays and lesbians - just as civilized people are ashamed of our country's treatment of African Americans before and during the civil rights era.

"I think that in the not so distant future we will look back as a nation and be ashamed at our country's lack of open mindedness and our discrimination against gays and lesbians - just as civilized people are ashamed of our country's treatment of African Americans before and during the civil rights era."

I don't believe these people have the ability to feel shame. It is nothing less than apartheid. Look what the supposedly enlightened did to the American Indians.

<<I think gays need marriage like children need candy, cell phones or video games - they want it but they hardly need it.>>

Under that argument, nobody needs marriage. Does that mean the entire institution should be done away with? The case for marriage is for all of the various benenfits... taxes, health care, retirements, death benefits, decision rights in case one partner becomes ill or injured, simple recognition of your chosen partner. Marriage implies a permanence that boyfriend/girlfriend, or even partner, does not.

Can you imagine what it's like if one partner (straight or gay) is injured yet the other partner can't make life altering decisions for them or even sit with them in the ICU because it's "family only"? Decisions regarding life support have been given to an elderly parent, a sibling, a child, because the hospital does not recognize the healthy partner as the next of kin.

One friend could not make medical decisions for her partner because they weren't married. It didn't matter that they had lived together at that point for a handful of years. It didn't matter that they're planning on spending the rest of their lives together and sharing their lives in every way that a married couple would. They've both been married before and it didn't end well for either of them so they simply don't want to get married again. He was injured and stoned out of his mind between incredible pain and a high dosage of pain meds. The doctors didn't want to let her sign any paperwork and almost made her go get his 90 year old dad to sign paperwork for needed surgery.

The exact reason that there is a need for gay marriage is for situations like this one. My friends have made the decision not to get married, and thus they have to deal with situations like this. Other friends have not made that decision, but up until recently did not have the legal right to make a different decision.


I don't like the idea that I have certain rights that a friend does not have in the eyes of most states or the federal government, simply because I'm attracted to men and she's attracted to women. That's not right. The government should strive to treat people equally and that's not equal or even close to it.

Maybe I'm not understanding Bitter's comment "I question the OP's comment that there is a movement "against" gay marriage," but there most certainly is a movement against gay marriage. Check out the National Organization for Marriage, for example. They aren't even based in Maine but sure spent enough money to influence the vote there.

"Under that argument, nobody needs marriage. Does that mean the entire institution should be done away with? The case for marriage is for all of the various benenfits... taxes, health care, retirements, death benefits, decision rights in case one partner becomes ill or injured, simple recognition of your chosen partner. Marriage implies a permanence that boyfriend/girlfriend, or even partner, does not."

Great post Iowa. But please remember that these votes are not about protecting marriage, they are about maintaining second-class status for gay Americans.

If they were concerned about protecting marriage they would work to eliminate divorce.

bdj, IowaRedhead has already answered your "why" question. I'm surprised that you haven't understood that a gay couple may have a legal need for marriage; I hope her answer enlightened you.

You say: <<it's built on children needing committed parents.>> What are you saying? That gays aren't committed parents? That heterosexuals automatically are? That people who marry but don't have children really have no reason to be married?

As someone who could and did get married during the brief window of legalized gay marriage in California, what happened in Maine saddens me as well as angers me.

And to those who say Gays don't need marriage or equate it to things like video games for children, how dare you! Despite being together as a couple for 23 years and married for one, my spouse and I cannot get social security benefits for one another in the event of death. The federal benefits extended "straight married couples" do not apply to gay ones.

spring: I'm not suggesting there isn't opposition. My point is that I think the movement here is "for" gay marriage, so good bad or otherwise, change is being sought (which is more difficult than keeping the status quo). My bigger point is that if the attitude is that this is all about the opposition, I think gay marriage advocates are underestimating the issue (and perhaps are not applying the best strategy).

"it's built on children needing committed parents"

That is laughable - any guy and girl can hook up in a bar one night and become parents - does that mean they are committed? Do you really think all heterosexual married couples are committed parents? Give me a break. I don't care if a couple is black, white, purple, two men, two women, short, tall, blonde, brunette, etc. . . . if they can provide a loving home and environment to a child then they are committed parents in my book. And religion has nothing to do with it. If your religion teaches you that your God wishes you to discriminate against your fellow mankind, that is your problem. And if your church doesn't want to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples that is fine. But if another church believes the sanctity of marriage is all about the love and commitment between two people, regardless of gender, then it should be allowed to marry gay couples without interference.

Just so readers understand, the state of Maine allowed same sex couples to marry as of May 2009. This new vote was a result of a referendem heavily funded by out of state interests. Another issue that factored into this is that out of state interests heavily advertised that if Mainers allowed gay marriage to occur the next thing would be that "gay marriage" would be "taught" in Maine schools. They put all kinds of ads on TV about how this is what happened in Massachusettes. And I mean a lot of ads and a lot of mailings! I'm not sure how people see this as related but apparently in some area of Mass there was some issue and those not in favor of marriage equality ran with it. It was a scare tactic even though this isn't an education issue. Can any Mass fodorites shed light on that incident?

A quote from another forum

It's the 21st century and still we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns rather than holding hands.

>>I'm more concerned about churches who marry gays than civil ceremonies <<

That is such a strange comment, imo. Why does that concern you? I could see you being concerned about your church doing that, if that is something you don't agree with, but all churches? Why should what another church does concern you at all?

And to the OP, yes, it is very sad and disheartening.

Attymom, I agree, that someday our children, when grown, will look back on this time the way we look back on the days of segregation.

Do you really think homosexuals are discriminated against the way blacks were prior to the '60's? If so, you have completely lost touch with reality.

Show me the lack of education or carreer opportunities that homosexuals must suffer. Show me the lack of wealth because of those lost opportunities. If anything, the prohomosexual agenda is a reflection of political power built on their wealth.

There may be rednecks who don't treat homosexuals well but there are also liberals who don't treat rednecks well. Should rednecks be a protected class because some people don't like them?

I agree too cat and attymom, our grandchildren will think we lived in the dark ages of discrimination. Well, they are right.

Rednecks are allowed to get married.

But not to their sisters. Discrimination!

Interesting. I didn't realize that civil rights were granted based on the degree of discrimination, bdjtbenson.

Speaking of sweeping generalizations, all gays are now wealthy? I'd call that our of touch with reality. Obviously someone hasn't seen a lot of the world--or lives it through grouping large swaths of people into convenient buckets.

Taken a look at the news lately?...maybe you'd read a bit about gay folks who have, yes, still lost their jobs due to their sexuality (military anyone?) or if you want to see a spate of unspeakable acts of violence against gays (including a bunch of murders) all you need to do is turn on your TV or open a paper.

To compare rednecks to a group of people who are murdered and shunned for the sheer fact of their sexuality is DISGUSTING.

How is saying that homosexual marriage is bad and shouldn't be allowed not the EXACT same as saying interracial marriage is bad and shouldn't be allowed?

It shouldn't matter what people think. It should matter that the government is not allowed to discriminate... not based on color, gender, sexual orientation or if you're a redneck or not.

Allowing a hetero couple to get married but not allowing a gay couple to get married, when they meet all of the same criteria otherwise, is BLATANT discrimination based entirely on sexual orientation.

<<Show me the lack of education or carreer opportunities that homosexuals must suffer. >>

You obviously weren't in school with any known gay kids. They are tormented, beaten, threatened, mocked. I went to a very liberal public school and I saw this kind of treatment. No, it wasn't 20 years ago, I graduated high school in 2003. A friend wasn't allowed to drive her car to school anymore because it was vandalized multiple times during the school day. Can you honestly tell me that a 16 year old girl has the same educational opportunities when they come out to their car with the windows busted and "die freak" and "dyke" spray painted on it? The guys who did it were never punished.

The torment can't be as open in the work place because adults are more able to fight back, but it's absolutely still there. Who is responsible for interviews, hiring, promotions and raises? If your supervisor doesn't approve of your sexual orientation, they can make your work life a living hell. I can't tell you the number of qualified gays have been turned away from jobs or fired from jobs simply because they're gay.

How many qualified soldiers have been discharged from the military, a military that is absolutely desperate for more people, because it became known they were gay? Show you the lack of career opportunities that homosexuals suffer? Open your eyes! In the last year there was a soldier who was splashed all over the news because he was discharged after an amazing career because it became known he was homosexual. Very shortly before he was eligible to retire, his career was ended and he lost so much.

I agree, wedlock should be a twofold proposition. A civil ceremony, that is open to all , and then if the couple wants a religious blessing. Priests and ministers should not have the right to seal a civil union. Most countries have that process.

"Show me the lack of education or carreer opportunities that homosexuals must suffer. Show me the lack of wealth because of those lost opportunities. If anything, the prohomosexual agenda is a reflection of political power built on their wealth."

Wow. You are a disciple of Glenn Beck.

What a sad, fearful, and cloistered world.

I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.
BHO

I agree Josh, so make sure your church is following scripture.

However, why should your religion trump policy in a country that has a separation of church laws and secular laws?

I hear that in England many Muslims are demanding Sharea (sp) laws override English laws - because in some areas the Muslims are the majority religion. By your admission, this should hold true. Your religion (the majority) should determine secular laws for everyone.

"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights."

President Obama has three more years.

Should be quite interesting.

I was saddened by this vote and that Washington State's law passed by such a slim margin.Are people that afraid of gays and lesbians? I understand people have religious beliefs but denying other people marriage isn't a religious right, especially for the state. I've stated before but there should never be votes by the majority on minority issues. Period.

For those who state that civil unions are just as valid-that's separate but equal. In my mind, it allows people to believe that gays are different than "normal" society and don't deserve marriage.

I think the saddest item I saw today was in the Bangor online newspaper. An old lady was on her knees weeping with joy that the Yes vote won. WTF, she wouldn't have been affected either way. Though karma states that one of her grandkids will come out later on.

Just so discouraging..

<<Though karma states that one of her grandkids will come out later on. >>

Emily71 - do you remember Phyllis Scaffly? She was an ultra conservative, family values type who felt women should stay at home pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, and gays should be defamed or something bad happen to their damned soles.

It was sad when her son came out as gay and she apparently never spoke to him again.

So much for family values.

P.S. If I was her son, I think I would've been quite happy to never speak to her again anyway!

"Though karma states that one of her grandkids will come out later on."

Which she will reject as so many do.

Parents throwing their gay children on the street is actually quite common.

>>"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples..."<<

But he is against gay marriage and believes "marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Are you against same sex marriage, ET?

Too young to remember Scaffly, but I remember hearing about Anita Bryant and seeing her orange juice commercials. I thought she was so pretty when I was young-little did I know

All this effort to deny others happiness-just think if they used that energy for good instead of evil..

>>Are you against same sex marriage, ET?<<

Absolutely not. Totally in favor of it. But when I read all that Obama campaign b.s. you were posting, I thought a little honesty about his position on gay marriage was appropriate.

Looks at it this way, ET.

Even the very best parents must lie to their bratty children.

And as far as I can tell, that is exactly what he did to shut up the religious right.

In hindsight, GWB did it with efficiency.

What if my religious beliefs say that marriage should be between two consenting adults regardless of gender? And what if my religious beliefs say we should all pierce our noses at the age of 16? Whose religious beliefs carry the day? All those people arguing that their religious beliefs and rules should apply to everyone better watch out for the day that their religion is in the minority and they are not the ones making the rules . . . I bet they sing a different tune then.

Religious beliefs or not, these political campaigns are profitable for the well organized religious hate groups.

If they had to base their work on the teaching of Jesus they would be broke tomorrow.

I don't think the discussion should ever be about religion. Once religion is brought in for whatever point someone is trying to make - it immediately gives both sides a chance to argue about an issue (who's religion is correct) that should only be about the legal issues. We are not a theocracy. We are a country where laws take precidence over religious beliefs.

The religious "laws" are not appropriate for issues invovlving state sactioned marriage. It is one thing for a person to chose to not marriage a gay person if their religion forbids it - it is not their right in a democratic government that separates church values from state laws.

"The religious "laws" are not appropriate for issues invovlving state sactioned marriage. It is one thing for a person to chose to not marriage a gay person if their religion forbids it - it is not their right in a democratic government that separates church values from state laws."

Traditional marriage proponents had better be careful in their continuation of their line of thinking. In essence, what they are saying is that they are an exclusive group and have access to exclusive benefits. It is going to be quite interesting to see what comes out of the Prop.8 court case.

They think they have won the battle but, in reality, they have lost the war.

>>Traditional marriage proponents had better be careful in their continuation of their line of thinking. In essence, what they are saying is that they are an exclusive group and have access to exclusive benefits.<<

I wonder if that is true. While it is certainly true that voters in 31 states have rejected gay "marriage," are they really against providing equal benefits? Whether for religious reasons or otherwise, a majority of voters apparently want to keep the term "marriage" as between a man and a woman. At the same time, voters don't seem to have the same antipathy to civil unions, which, if enacted at both the federal and state level, could provide equal benefits to gay couples. Is this an interim step until we have a more enlightened population?

I don't think the discussion should ever be about religion.

Well, you can take religion out of the discussion, but you can't take the discussion out of the religion. And, if 75% of the country claims the religion (Christianity, in this case), even though the discussion isn't about religion, it should be no surprise that religious beliefs influence legislation.

Nana, good post on leaving religion out of the debate, it serves no real purpose and it clouds the debate. This debate should be over the law and nothing else.

Here is my question and it is a legal concern, if the tradition definition of marriage is changed, to include same sex marriages what about Mormons or those that wish to be in a ‘group’ type relationship? Do we allow these people the same rights as married couples? They fit the criterion that is used to argue the need for same sex marriage: they are consenting adults, they are not harming anyone and it is not unnatural (they are not wanting to marry their dogs etc.) So are they also allowed to enjoy the benefits and rights that are afforded in a marriage? If not why? Is it because they are a group not a couple? And the traditional definition of marriage is two people?

This is a debate that we have had here many times and I have done a lot of thinking on the matter and from a legal perspective there is no question that as of now there is not a fair and equitable access to the laws and its protections to homosexual couples. The problem as I see it though is that we if we change the definition of marriage at what point do you establish a new definition that is equitable to all? Right now polygamists can not get married; reason being it is contrary to the historical definition of marriage, the same is said for same sex marriage.

So where does that leave us? We as a nation of laws have to afford every citizen regardless of our likes and dislikes access to the same legal protections and benefits there in. However will the redefinition of marriage open a legal Pandora’s box?

I find myself coming to the same conclusion that President Obama has, I think that Civil unions need to be extended to include the same legal rights and protections that marriages do, this is the only means by which we as a civilized nation can call ourselves a nation of laws, we will have afforded equal protection under the law for all. Another benefit is that by not changing what is the traditional definition we have left the box closed. Marriage is a union between one man and a woman, and the courts can define a civil union as the union of two members of the same or opposite sex (I am assuming that some heterosexuals couples will opt for a civil union). Thus the law is extended to all and there are no grounds upon which Mormons or other ‘big love’ types can argue.

This seems to me to be a solution to a bad situation, and if the goal is to offer equal protection under the law it achieves said goal.

"are they really against providing equal benefits?"

Most assuredly. These are the very same people who would deny any recognition or benefits.

Case in point Virginia. There is no legal recognition of any form of same gender partnership. And that's what they want. Don't fool yourself.

"Here is my question and it is a legal concern, if the tradition definition of marriage is changed, to include same sex marriages what about Mormons or those that wish to be in a ‘group’ type relationship? Do we allow these people the same rights as married couples?"

Who cares what these people want? So what if they all get married. What difference does it make? Are you going to discriminate against a significant minority because what a few whackjobs in the middle of the Utah desert are doing?

That would be like closing Yosemite because every year two people get eaten by bears.

It's in the noise.

>>Case in point Virginia. There is no legal recognition of any form of same gender partnership. And that's what they want. Don't fool yourself.<<

Has it been tested before the voters of Virginia?

Marriage is between 2 consenting, unrelated adults. How's that, SFG?

I absolutely hate when people bring the 'well, what's next, can you marry your dog?' argument into the mix, which, whether your intention was to or not, your question about polygamy is as about as illogical as.

>>"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples..."<<

other than for the privledge of be married, that is.

I guess the one thing that can be said is that it is fortunate that neither slavery nor the civil rights legislation, aka equality, was subject to a vote!

From what I have read it seems that the Catholic Church was very involved in the Maine vote as was the Mormons in the California vote. It's unfortunate that there is no leadership from the WH and that the silence speaks volumes. In this day and time it seems that a "Democratic" POTUS' words, as a candidate, can be used to defeat equality and defend bigotry without so much as a wimper from him!

The Obama DOJ once again defended DOMA is court just last Friday and with his refusal to act on DADT and you've got a record that is inexcusable, given that he campaigned as a "fierce advocate" of LGBT issues.

But then we live in a country where the H1N1 vaccine is being distributed to Wall Street firms (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Time Warner) when most of the country does not have access to it yet - including many in the high risk groups and that the death rate from the flu among the seniors is higher than any other group according to CREW.

You see, we are a country where some folks are just more equal than others ... and some dare to call him a "progressive."

>>Marriage is between 2 consenting, unrelated adults.>>

Except in the Southern states in the US, and apparently Rush Limbaugh's parents. (Just joking folks).

referring to the unrelated adults (not the consenting part).

Wall Street firms are getting the vaccine? So are Gitmo detainees and prisoners in the US.

Page one of 0bamaCare.

SFG~Please. With all due respect, the Pandora's box is really not the issue here.Even if it was, change brings more change and more court based arguments of what should be and should not be legal.

I am with those who argue there should be "civil unions" for everyone who desires to declare them with equal rights (federal and state).If someone then wishes to have a religious ceremony in conjunction with the civil union so be it. Then there really is no legal distinction/discrimination.

BTW~this same kind of argument about "the box..." is part of what made my head spin and to what I referred awhile back when you were discussing why you were on the boards less.I did say the gay marriage threads were difficult for me.

What is appropriate to a weight management thread is in the eye of the OP(so it would seem) and what is appropriate to a gay marriage thread may well be in the eye of the OP. So it goes.

Sfg, I sort of see your point about multiple marriage (not that I think it is even close to the same issue) but I think there is a valid reason to not include that. When one marries, any benefits will then cover two people, and eventually any children. I think that to allow benefits to include as many adults as one wants would be cost prohibitive and could put a huge strain companies.

I think the difference is that gays and lesbians just want the same rights as the rest of us. Polygamists want different rules to apply to them. No one is denying a polygamist the right to marry - they just can't marry more than one person at a time. Apples and oranges . . .

By that logic, no one is denying gays the right to marry-they just can't marry people of the same gender.

"Polygamists want different rules to apply to them. No one is denying a polygamist the right to marry - they just can't marry more than one person at a time."

But the issue is more subtle than that I think. If the argument for gay marriage is that society does not have the right to define marriage based on some definition of morality- one man, one woman - then why does it stop only at gay marriage? Either society has the right or does not have the right to define marriage based on customs, traditions, or a definition of morality. Recognizing that you will not reach consensus on a definition of morality.

If you fallback and say "custom dictates marriage as between two people" then aren't you in fact saying that the opposition to gay marriage has that same right to apply custom and tradition?

This argument that if one thing is made legal then everything else that might be a deterant to having that happen is brought up.

If two people can enter into a marriage, then two people can enter into a marriage. Who those TWO peoples personal sexual orientations are, are the issue not all the configuations we can come up with.

This fact that polygamists, blah, blah blah must now be brought into the mix is a red herring.

You can argue the reverse. Maybe we shouldn't allow marriage for a man and a women, because the law then MUST allow a dog and his master to marry, a father and daughter to marry.

It isn't a red herring just because you fail to grasp the point.

Marriage has by tradition been defined as one man, one woman. If you make the case that this tradition is flawed or subject to a reinterpretation then on what intellectual basis can you then use "tradition" to not expand the definition further.

BTW, it's intellectual nonsense from both sides when you start "well I can marry an animal if I wish."

Also, where I live, fathers and daughters don't marry. Perhaps that's a tradition where you live. Though I suspect the authorities would frown on it.

Marriage, by tradition, was a way to get land or get rid of daughters. We changed that and everyone survived. I think marriage will survive gays, too.

As long as they're two consenting adults, who gives a rats behind after that? I don't see why it matters to anyone if their neighbors have a legal certificate or not.

The answer the government could use to the (very unlikely) possible question of why not to allow polygamy is financially and legally based. If you allow more than one spouse at a time who has what rights? Who over-rides who?

Say Joe Bob is in a car accident and put on life support, the only question is when to pull the plug. The spouse has the responsibility and right to make that choice. If there are potentially multiple spouses and they disagree, how does the government recognize who to listen to? You could end up with a Terri Schiavo case between the surviving spouses. With more than one spouse, what happens with survival rights and death benefits? Social security, inheritance, insurance, and many other issues come into question if you have multiple spouses.

A spouse has many legal and financial rights and responsibilities, multiple spouses confuses the heck out of every possible issue for the government.

As for equality issues, nobody has the right to marry more than one person at a time so it seems equal to me. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they wish to (assuming the other person wants them in return of course ).

The argument that if gays can marry then polygmists must also be allowed to marry is ridiculous and is brought up to make people say well, let's not let gays marry because now we have to allow polygmists to marry and everyone else or group or situaiton to be included.

We can allow a man and a women to marry and we can change the laws to allow two consenting adults to marry, without allowing polygmists to marry as well.

wanatrvl wrote on Nov 4, 09 at 1:38pm
"Just so readers understand, the state of Maine allowed same sex couples to marry as of May 2009. This new vote was a result of a referendem heavily funded by out of state interests. Another issue that factored into this is that out of state interests heavily advertised that if Mainers allowed gay marriage to occur the next thing would be that "gay marriage" would be "taught" in Maine schools. They put all kinds of ads on TV about how this is what happened in Massachusettes. And I mean a lot of ads and a lot of mailings! I'm not sure how people see this as related but apparently in some area of Mass there was some issue and those not in favor of marriage equality ran with it. It was a scare tactic even though this isn't an education issue. Can any Mass fodorites shed light on that incident?"




wanatrvl is basically right. The guy who led the campaign against gay marriage in CA came here to Maine to lead the campaign here. Our legislators and governor passed the bill on same sex marriage in May, but I think it was challenged right away, so gays could not marry then. There were months of fear mongering, mostly about gay marriage and gay sex being taught to elementary school children; it was on the TV and on the radio every 10 seconds. It was really revolting. The gay marriage folks ran a very respectable campaign, squeaky clean, with very honest and respectable commercials. Oh and the churches were really pushing people to vote against gay marriage. Practically every church and bible thumper up here had 3 or 4 political signs in their yard. I'm very disappointed in the turn out, but there was a record vote for an off year, so.... We did pass a law about medical marijuana, which seemed strange to me that we could pass that and not the gay marriage law. Money talks. Well at least that creep that led that fight has gone back to CA. and on to his next war on gays.

You got that right, tbelgian. You can thank the so-called "National Organization for Marriage" for that. They're a third-party special interest group that has made it their mission to stick their nose into the states rights issues they espouse to defend, yet pour money into campaigns of nonsense and fearmongering with these 'they're going to teach gay sex in school' TV ads. It's sickening, false, and BLATANT bigotry. I'm sorry, but no one can defend that as anything other than that. I'd love to hear the rationale for any of their abhorrent ads and lies.

Hi JES,

>How does this hurt anyone? <

Money.

If sam-sex couples are permitted to marry, then one of them will be covered by the other's medical insurance. The ins cos are very worried that they will have to pay bug bucks to care for HIV/AIDS patients.

Another good reason for universal, public health care.

Hi Iowa_Redhead on Nov 4, 09 at 11:46am

There are things called "power of attorney". It permits all of the things you have listed except "taxes, health care, retirements".

In the first instance, the "marriage penalty" has been nearly erased.

In the third, private retirement plans permit one to name anyone as a beneficiary. Social security provides only for spouses and children (natural or adopted).

The provision that allows health care for one's spouse is the problem.

Hey bd,

>it's built on children needing committed parents.<

Actually, it is built on "who shall inherit".

In some countries (eg Wales), all children share equally.

In some countries (eg Ireland) all "legitimate" children share equally.

In some countries (eg England) only the oldest "legitimate" son inherits.

bdjtbenson on Nov 4, 09 at 2:43pm

Change the word "homosexual" to Native American, Jew, Chinese, Asian, Irish, Italian, Swede, etc.

Same argument.

MI writes,
>Looks at it this way, ET.......Even the very best parents must lie to their bratty children........<

You really believe that lying by elected officials is the equivalent of dealing with bratty children?

Or are you just trying to defend BO?

Hi SFG,

>...if the tradition[al] definition of marriage is changed,.......<

A very good point.

That is why I believe that the State should get out of the marriage business.

if the tradition definition of marriage is changed,

Many people have stated that 'by tradition, marriage has always meant one man-one woman', yet clearly this is rubbish. Polygamy has been, and still is in many countries, practiced for centuries.

The difference is that in western society we have decided that marriage means one man-one woman. It's not divined by some higher being or etched into the ocean floor, it's a man made construct. And as such, like many man made laws, it is open to reinterpretation according to how our societies wish it.

Our societies (I'm talking western societies) have decided that polygamy is innapropriate for society as a whole, as we (now) value equality for women (polygamy is frequently to the benfit of men and not women), and our inheritance and next of kin laws and traditions are thrown into mass complication.

It is a bridge we do not want to cross at this moment. Who knows how we might feel about it in 200 years time. But if our societies DID change to the point of wanting it, then it is hardly without precedent.

Now, unlike polygamy, we have reached a point where gay marriage needs to be addressed, because our societies have reached a point where equality for all means something. In a fair and just (and notionally secular) western world that no longer regards homosexuality as a deviance, a sin or a deformity, then it is unjust to deny the marriage state to a portion of our people. It is inequality. Prejudice. And it needs sorting. Like yesterday.

Unlike the argument that people will marry animals which is absurd, with the polygamy question you are faced with a similar situation, just as we are with same sex marriage.

Those who support same sex marriage say that there is no reason why two people of the same sex should not be married, it hurts no one, they are consenting adults etc. So they want to make one little change from the way we define marriage here in the west. That change being from one man and one woman to include that members of the same sex can be married, one little change.

Polygamists can argue the same point, there is no reason why a group of people can not be married, it hurts no one, they are consenting adults etc. So they want to make one little change from the way we define marriage here in the west. That change being from one man and one woman to include multiple men or women, one little change. Any argument for the support of one can be used for the other. As far as who makes the decisions the term ‘head wife’ or ‘head husband’ comes to mind.

As Kate pointed out in her post, polygamy is a common practice in the world, we just don’t recognize it at this time, much as at one time the thought to recognize same sex marriage would not have been on the national conscience.

Kate also states…

In a fair and just (and notionally secular) western world that no longer regards homosexuality as a deviance, a sin or a deformity, then it is unjust to deny the marriage state to a portion of our people…

I disagree with this, there are plenty of people in this nation that view homosexuality as a deviance, a sin or a deformity but that is beside the point, the people of this nation don’t have to like it but the law has to be fair and equitable. That is the argument is the law fair? Not what are your personal thoughts on the matter.

To that end I support what the President has proposed, expand civil unions and leave marriages alone. If the true goal here is equal protection under the law then the Presidents solution achieves that goal.

"You really believe that lying by elected officials is the equivalent of dealing with bratty children?"

When it comes to the religious right...most definitely.

Second thought, make that ignorant, bratty children.

<<sfg: there are plenty of people in this nation that view homosexuality as a deviance, a sin or a deformity. >>

If we use the argument that someone who is preceived as deviant, or sinful can't marry then this would exclude many heterosexual men from marriage. People in prison, ex-child abusers, drug addicts, etc could not marry.

A law doesn't have to be fair and equitable. It has to be legal under the constitution. We have lots of laws that certain groups consider unfair. Children can't drink or vote, ex-felons have certain rights taken away, I can't turn my home zoned for single family residential into a multi-family condo complex - but my neighbor a block away can, etc.

There is nothing to demand that if gays can marry, that polygamist must follow in their demand for marriage. More than two people is against a state marriage vow in the US.

I find Sunflowerguy's comments very interesting. Whether or not one considers that a reason to maintain the current definition of gay marriage is up for interpretation, but I don't think we can just dismiss the polygamy issue as absurd (as many gay marriage proponents try to do).

Yes, it is absurd Bitter. It is a red herring to throw people off the track. It's a scare tactic.

If someone used the argument if we allow citizens to own guns then we must let felons, children, mentally disabled people own guns too. No we don't. We don't have to allow a lot of things just because one group can.

"there are plenty of people in this nation that view homosexuality as a deviance, a sin or a deformity". Lots of people think lots of things that are based on prejudice, misplaced morality and ignorance, but we should be able to depend on our lawmakers to not enact or enforce laws based on such notions.

"To that end I support what the President has proposed, expand civil unions and leave marriages alone. If the true goal here is equal protection under the law then the Presidents solution achieves that goal."

Why leave marriages alone? Religious people seem to regard 'marriage' as a religious institution. It is not. Marriage is a legal contract, and atheists are as welcome to enter into it as religious people. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to withhold that term and create a 'separate but equal' division for those who don't share other peoples' beliefs or fit into a neat 'Christian' definition of marriage.

Hey MI,

>"You really believe that lying by elected officials is the equivalent of dealing with bratty children?"
When it comes to the religious right...most definitely. <

So, it is all right for elected officials to lie to the people if they don't like their religious beliefs.

What if they don't like their political beliefs?

nanabee: To turn your comment around, then we don't need to let gays marry, either.

Hi all,

Please, someone, define "Marriage" and let me know what rights and responsibilities accompany marriage that can't be done by contract in a secular society.

"I don't think we can just dismiss the polygamy issue as absurd."

Well of course not. Because somewhere, somehow, another narrow-minded Christian finds that just as offensive.

I have no problem maintaining an open mind on the rights and wrongs of polygamy. IF I could be convinced that it hurt no one, then in theory I wouldn't have a problem with it. I remain to be convinced, however.

But I do agree with nanabee that it's a red herring designed to scare people off gay marriage, which really really does hurt no one, but could benefit a long abused section of our society.

"If we use the argument that someone who is preceived as deviant, or sinful can't marry then this would exclude many heterosexual men from marriage. People in prison, ex-child abusers, drug addicts, etc could not marry."

Heck, if sinful people couldn't marry, then we'd all be in trouble.

Bitter, in Nanabee's argument for why not everyone can have a gun legally it's due to a safety issue not an equality issue. For safety reasons, it's okay to take certain rights away from people.

I doubt you can find many people who will actually argue that children and those who are mentally disabled should be allowed to purchase guns.

ira, you have a good point - one that I personally (in a straight marriage) would find acceptable to me. However, many gays have chidren, have been together for many, many years and would like to have a ceremony and commitment for themselves and their families. Really, you cares who marries?
It won't hurt a Christian to be open and welcoming to others - like Christ supposedly wanted his followers to do.

"But I do agree with nanabee that it's a red herring designed to scare people off gay marriage, which really really does hurt no one, but could benefit a long abused section of our society."

As I flip through media, I question the "abused" comment, but otherwise why doesn't the your sentiment also apply to polygamists?

That's exactly right IowaRedhead! That's my point, if we can allow straights to marry and still exclude polygamists. We should also be willing to allow gays to marry and still exclude polygamists.

We do this for many laws - like the examples I've given.

Ira asks: 'Please, someone, define "Marriage" and let me know what rights and responsibilities accompany marriage that can't be done by contract in a secular society.'

Legally speaking, nothing that I can think of. We've got Civil Partnerships in the UK that carry the same rights and responsibilities. But entering into marriage isn't like setting up a business partnership - it's about love and devotion, it's a public declaration to the world, it's about how other people regard the importance of your relationship as a family unit, and the respect that is conferred upon it by people and institutions you come into contact with.

If you're presently married, how would you feel if we, as a society, decided to change your marriage to a civil union (not everyone's marriage, just yours, because, I don't know, society has decided that red haired people can't be married). Your wife is now just your partner. But your neighbours are still husband and wife. Doesn't mean anything legally, does it? But emotionally? It means everything.

Ira, purely off the top of my head, one of the benefits of marriage that can not be accomplished by contract is protection to not give privileged information. I don't know the legal details, but as far as I know a spouse can not be compelled to give testimony against their spouse.

Social security benefits are also limited to spouses and can not be designated to someone other than a legal spouse or child (as far as I know, this is definitely not my area of expertise).

Nanabee you are making an argument where there is none. Here is my entire post…

I disagree with this, there are plenty of people in this nation that view homosexuality as a deviance, a sin or a deformity but that is beside the point, the people of this nation don’t have to like it but the law has to be fair and equitable. That is the argument is the law fair? Not what are your personal thoughts on the matter.

Once again we find that we are actually agreeing on the point that ones personal opinion does not matter in regards to the law. In regards to the fair and equitable I mean in regards to access to the law and its protections.

You say…

If someone used the argument if we allow citizens to own guns then we must let felons, children, mentally disabled people own guns too. No we don't. We don't have to allow a lot of things just because one group can.

Sorry that argument does not work, felons have forfeited rights for violation of the law, children have restricted rights until they are an adult and the disabled as long as they can meet whatever state qualifications for owning a gun would be allowed.

This is a conversation about the law and marriage not about religion. As Nana suggested at the start religion needs to be left out of this argument.

No matter how some may wish to dismiss this as a red herring if it is so is the argument for same sex marriage. There is not one argument that can be used in the support for the one that can not be used in support of the other.

"As I flip through media, I question the "abused" comment, but otherwise why doesn't the your sentiment also apply to polygamists?"

Bitter, you don't think homosexuals are a long abused minority? They don't still get bullied at school? Or beaten up? Murdered for being gay, as a man was just last week in Trafalgar Square? Discriminated against at work? Rejected by their families? Gosh, you must live in a gay utopia.

By the way, you obviously haven't read my comments about polygamy. Please re-read.

Yes, SFG, polygamists have forfeited rights for violation of the law too. Polygamy is against the law - it can't be something they can claim they must be allowed to have because gays want to now get married too.

It is against the law to have more than two people in the marriage. That would apply equally to gays who would marry.

sorry SFG if I miss understood your earlier post.

You're a polygophobe, nanabee.

"IF I could be convinced that it hurt no one,"

Please tell me how polygamy hurts any one. I find it fascinating that all these "get government out of my life" type of people, are so damn worried about one man sleeping with multiple women. Because, in reality, the streets are full of them. Just check out Craigslist.

Traditional marriage proponents should be quite happy that gays want to be included because, in fact, the "traditional" family is not longer traditional. It is actually a minority.

Kate, I didn't think about the reasons for marriage (vs a legal contract) in the same way, but you said it very well.

Kate: "long abused?" Yes, absolutely. Currently abused? Not so much. Don't get me wrong, sure there are instances of abuse. Sadly, it is my "utopian" view is that there always will be instances of abuse, but that is true with race, religion and any distinquishing factor. However, we are in an amazing age with not only the acceptance but often relative glorification of gays and lesbian in popular culture.

As for polygamy, my point is just put it on the table now. If "consenting adults" is the standard (and I'm not arguing whether it is or should be) let's discuss all of these. If we are redefining marriage, why piecemeal the issues for consideration?

"No matter how some may wish to dismiss this as a red herring if it is so is the argument for same sex marriage. There is not one argument that can be used in the support for the one that can not be used in support of the other."

I disagree. Gay marriage hurts no one. Polygamous marriage is frequently to the detriment of the women involved, as evidenced in societies that still operate the practice. Polygamy is frequently unfair to one or more of the parties and by its nature often an unequal partnership. As long as these issues with polygamy persist, then it won't be granted official, legal status, because I don't believe the state is any longer in the business of enforcing sexual inequality on its people. Oh, wait...

Nana and right now in most states it is against the law for two members of the same sex to marry, yet they are claiming they have the right to. There is no difference in the situation other than you desire one law to change and the other to not.

No worries on the other heat of battle, lol

holly uncasdewar LOL. I've been called many things before holly, but this is a first! It kinda has an interesting ring to it.

Actually I'm not against polygamy just against people using it as a reason to deny gays the right to marry.

>>Miss Info: ...are so damn worried about one man sleeping with multiple women. Because, in reality, the streets are full of them. Just check out Craigslist. >> true

Kate, while I agree that polygamy is not the sort of lifestyle I would choose for myself, if someone desires to live in that sort of an arrangement who are we to tell them no. If they are adults they can make their own decisions as they see fit. Plenty of relationships are not equal in any sense and I don’t see the state stopping them, so why polygamy?

sfg: <<in some states it is against the law for two members of the same sex to marry, yet they are claiming they have the right to>>

some laws are worth changing.... and some are worth keeping.
I guess it depends on which side of the fence one straddles!

SFG, in a sense I agree with you, truly. I don't care what consenting adults want to get up to. If it could be shown that polygamous relationships were in the MAJORITY equal and fair even - and consequently hurt no one - great, go for it, but sadly I think that's a long way from being true in most cases.

I agree that many relationships are unequal for lots of reasons - we can't control human nature after all - but polygamous marriage would be like state-sponsored sexism in the majority of cases.

"However, we are in an amazing age with not only the acceptance but often relative glorification of gays and lesbian in popular culture."

And the problem with that is........????

Yes, I think gays are more accepted in our culture but they certainly aren't glorified.
If they were they'd have the same or more rights as straights instead of fewer.

This is what bothers me about bringing religion or polygamy into the conversation - it diverts the topic to something else.

Kate, I think we are in agreement. But equality in a relationship has never been grounds for the state to get involved and I think that when it comes to the subject of marriage that if the definition is changed that these will be the issues we face. The expansion of civil unions I believe is the answer.

Nana, well at the very least you are honest and can admit you have something in common with those that oppose same sex marriage, as it all comes down to a matter of personal bias (or fence).

Yes I think it does SFG.
It is a personal bias on my part that I think they should have the right to marry. The other side of the fence (so to speak) has equal biases - BUT they try to justify it with "well it's not my prejudice, it's because god or some higher authority causes me to support this stance." This is fine. If one is religious and a gay then don't marry. But the law should not be influenced by one's religion in case other's don't follow other's religious laws

"Nana, well at the very least you are honest and can admit you have something in common with those that oppose same sex marriage, as it all comes down to a matter of personal bias (or fence)."

SFG, I appreciate your balanced and well-meaning arguments, but its debates such as this that sadden me more than any rants by unthinking bigots (which you clearly are not). I'm going to come out of the closet now in the hope that you can understand why I feel so passionately about this issue. I am gay, and dearly hope that one day I can marry my partner.

I've long since stopped caring what religious zealots think about the issue - they'll never like it and will always regard me as a deviant. Nothing will change that view.

But you sound like a reasonable person who has thought about this logically. But at the end of the day, it's not really about logic, it's about emotion. It's about wanting to be part of my own family and have my relationship accepted and respected. A Civil Union goes part way, but in the end it misses the emotional point. So you can make your reasoned arguments, close down the thread and go about your business unaffected. Whereas this issue affects me deeply, personally and possible permanently. I hope you can see my point of view.

Nana, whatever makes someone land on whatever side of the fence they have their own reasons for being there. While you can argue that one is better than the other it all depends upon ones own paradigm as one can justify their bias with any argument they so chose it is their bias after all.

Kate, wow, I am (for once) speechless.

Which is fine SFG as long as one's bias doesn't cause another to miss out on living a normal life equal to what others have.
Discrimination - the intentional denying of what an individual has from what others are entitled too is wrong.

"Kate, wow, I am (for once) speechless."

Please don't be, I need you as my wingman in this thread LOL

MissI: "And the problem with that is........????"
I was just making an observation.
And if I of someone doesn't like a particular show, they can always change the channel.

Kate, this is personal to you. I get and respect that. But that doesn't mean the issue isn't actually bigger than your focus, concern or beliefs (or mine for that matter).

Bravo to you Kate!

You right about their thoughts being illogical but, that's who they are. They are children of their environment. They learn what they live. Delivered to them by the media, their parents, friends, etc.... They will never understand your pain because they have never experience true discrimination and have never been denied anything of value.

It always reminds me of my friend who was brought up in a rabid anti-abortionist family. He would pound his fist in disgust until the day that he got a girl pregnant and needed one. Oh how reality changes one's mind.

Kate~you are not alone on this board. Imade mention of a previous thread in which SFG felt "inappropriate" comments were made about his weight issues. I find the same is being done here by him about gay marriage.

I will now sign off this thread. Many of the sentiments are cruel and discriminatory. Folks come up with all sorts of reasons why this is justified. Frankly, it's not.

Bitter; "Kate, this is personal to you. I get and respect that. But that doesn't mean the issue isn't actually bigger than your focus, concern or beliefs (or mine for that matter)."

Well really, it IS a personal issue, isn't it? It might be about your 'focus, concern or beliefs', but it's actually about my life. What's a 'bigger issue' than that?

"I will now sign off this thread. Many of the sentiments are cruel and discriminatory. Folks come up with all sorts of reasons why this is justified. Frankly, it's not."

And it's actually the dispassionate, unbending way these views are delivered which feels most cruel. Indifference to how these views affect others is so much worse than outright hatred.

"Well really, it IS a personal issue, isn't it? It might be about your 'focus, concern or beliefs', but it's actually about my life. What's a 'bigger issue' than that?"

Remember Kate, there are many people who believe that they are the Soldiers of Morality. Because their lives are so very pristine and proper, they have all the time in the world to point fingers and denigrate.

Well indeed MissI, and I'd be the last one to want to do someone out of a job.

Anyway, I've got to go now and get dinner for my 'partner'. If nothing else, I hope this thread will mean some people here will go home tonight and give their wives or husbands an extra long cuddle, in gratitude for what they have together.

"Remember Kate, there are many people who believe that they are the Soldiers of Morality. Because their lives are so very pristine and proper, they have all the time in the world to point fingers and denigrate."

Exactly!

"I hope this thread will mean some people here will go home tonight and give their wives or husbands an extra long cuddle, in gratitude for what they have together."

It's a cold and rainy day. Time for mushroom risotto, a pork roast and a bottle of Barolo.

Ciao!

<<ira:

>How does this hurt anyone? <

Money.

If sam-sex couples are permitted to marry, then one of them will be covered by the other's medical insurance. The ins cos are very worried that they will have to pay bug bucks to care for HIV/AIDS patients.>>

What a f*ing atrocious thing to say, ira.

Are you saying that all gay people have AIDS? If you truly believe that statement to be true, please provide some actual sources on that one. Other than, y'know, just your prejudice.

What century are you living in? It blows my mind the amount of blatant ignorance on this thread.

"What's a 'bigger issue' than that?"

To you, yes. I was talking about legislative and policy changes relating to the re-definition of marriage, which is arguably bigger than just allowing gay marriage (but may certainly encompass that aspect), but I understand your focus. Enjoy dinner. I was hoping for an invite to MissI's !

Katie,

First off thank you for feeling comfortable enough with me to tell me your story that means more than I could ever hope to express, thank you. Since this debate first started I have tried my hardest to look at this from your point of view.

I can not begin to understand the pain and grief it would cause me if Mrs. Sun was dieing or needed medical care and some pencil pusher was keeping me away from her. So the more I have thought the more I have come to the conclusions that I have.

While I know it is not what many in the homosexual community desire (expanded civil unions as opposed to marriage) it would allow them the legal protection to be with their loved ones, and to enjoy the rights that other committed couples do.

I am sorry if my dispassionate delivery of my thought process has hurt you, as this is something deeply personal and important to you, rightly so I might add but emotions cloud the issue. Sorry if that sounds cold or heartless. I wish you nothing but the best and it is my sincere hope that you and your partner will not have to deal with added heartache over matters like this in the future, how we achieve that be it through your desire of marriage or the expansion of civil unions will be up to the people of this nation.

Thank you again for your honesty and willingness to share,

-SFG-

PamSF,
This is the second time you have brought this issue up so I will address it before you do it for a third time. There is a vast difference between someone having a different opinion than your own (as we have here) and a personal attack which had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Your choice to state that people with weight issues should not be allowed to marry or have children was rude, uncalled for and showed you for what you are.

Now if you happen to disagree with me on the subject at hand that is your right and privilege to do so, but never once until this point have I addressed your or sad something that was rude etc. I have presented what I consider to be a clear and to the point personal opinion , while you are free to disagree with it don’t fool yourself into thinking that your actions toward me on the weight loss thread are somehow justified by my having a different opinion than your own.

So what's to stop polygamists from demanding civil union status for multiple relationships?

I rest my case.

Totally agree with ira.

And very few are listening to him or responding to any aspect of that reality on this thread.

I and 100,000's of others just like me are examples of how that plays out. There is less and less and less advantage in anything to be married at all, as time goes on. And in fact, oftentimes there is advantage by law for MORE specific directives without marriage.

So true, bdj- what you posted near the front end of this thread. That too.

To paraphrase something from another time:

"Gays need marriage, like a fish needs a bicycle."

Such a big bunch of bs about absolutely nothing. Civil Unions would be better for heterosexuals, as well.

With 1/2 the kids in this country no longer having parents married to each other at any time- not even upon the era of their birth- marriage as a legal oath and whole life committment to support children has also become meaningless. Except to the lawyers and the others that live off of the more than 50% of marriage failures.

There was strong legal and financial reasons for marriage. There aren't any more.

SFG.... I didn't see the other thread, but I think Pam's point is that a law prohibiting gay marriage is just as unfair as would be a law prohibiting overweight people from marrying and having children.

Little noticed in this debate is the "every thing but marriage" referendum in Washington that has apparently been approved by the voters there and provides gay couples in civil unions in that state with all legal rights granted to married couples except for the title "married." Perhaps this is a way to go until people become more accepting.

Hi Kate,

>Doesn't mean anything legally, does it? But emotionally? It means everything.<

I see your point, even if I don't agree with the sentiment.
..................................................
Hi IR,
>a spouse can not be compelled to give testimony against their spouse.<
That can be rectified by adding "civil union partner" to the law. People not married to lawyers, physicians and other persons are protected as well.

>Social security benefits are also limited to spouses....<
Same argument.
However, according to www.ssa.gov, "your [surviving] parents can receive benefits on your earnings if they were dependent on you for at least half of their support".
So, it is recognized in law that persons other than spouses and children can receive SS benefits.

In some cases, recent law has removed some of the exclusive status concerning married couples. For example, a spouse is no longer responsible for debts accrued solely by the other spouse.
...........................................................
Hi Bit,

>this is personal to you. I get and respect that. But that doesn't mean the issue isn't actually bigger than your focus, concern or beliefs (or mine for that matter).<

If Kate had said that she was a person of one color who wanted to marry a person of another color and live in a State or Country that anti-miscegeination laws, would you say the same thing?

Hey filmwill on Nov 6, 09 at 12:20pm

You have completely misread both the words and the intent of my post.

I said that it was the ins cos that had a problem.

Hi ja,

>So what's to stop polygamists from demanding civil union status for multiple relationships?<

Money.

There was a recent case in which a polygamist was collecting AFDC for each of his multiple wives and their children.
...................................................
Hey JJ5 on Nov 6, 09 at 12:59pm

You are very wise.

Ira: I'm assuming federal law somehow trumps states on anti-miscegeination, but I don't know what happens if I have multiple spoouses and move to the US. Interesting question.

the AFDC (aide for dependent children) is for the children, not the mothers. How is this different from a man who has multiple children with multiple ex-wives?

Many people already have multiply spouses (or spoouses if you prefer the foreign spelling ) if they have been married and divorced more than once.

Hey ira, no I didn't.

I asked for backup or any sort of proof of your statement.

Which you obviously don't have any for.

<Insert dim lightbulb for the dim statement>

And for all the people who think that religious organizations would be comfortable with civil unions...

Please consider:

"Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, ending months of contentious battles over a state law that expands benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.

That means the law could be enacted in about a month, once the election is certified. Along with other marriagelike state benefits, it will allow registered couples to use sick leave to care for one another or to claim one another's death benefits."

"Larry Stickney, campaign manager for Protect Marriage Washington, the conservative Christian organization that worked for rejection of the referendum, said: "There are a lot of votes out there still. We continue to have some hope that the votes cast later will move in our direction."

Earlier this week, Stickney said he was requesting prayers statewide, and the Web site for Protect Marriage Washington said: "As you may know, we have seen amazing things happen at every critical juncture of this campaign. ... Let's pray the Reject R-71 effort across the finish line!"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010213134_referendum06m.html

That's right. They don't even want gay couples to have sick leave to care for one another.

It's not about marriage. It's not even about civil unions.

It's about the continuation of institutionalized discrimination. It's sad when a group of people dedicate so much of their time to this type of activity. What a waste.

A woman or man identifies themselves as the "B" in LGBTG and has a relationship with a man and a woman. Please explain your rationale as to why they should not be allowed to marry their partners.

You seem to be a little confused. Being sexually attracted to both men and women does not imply a desire to be married to both a man and a woman simultaneously, any more than being sexually attracted to men or to women implies a desire to be married to more than one man or one woman at a time.

<<A woman or man identifies themselves as the "B" in LGBTG and has a relationship with a man and a woman. Please explain your rationale as to why they should not be allowed to marry their partners.>>

OMG, it just gets better and better. This is a joke, right?

Ira: "Money."

But the same argument applies equally to polygamous marriage. My question is why some people think "What about polygamy?" is a valid argument against same-sex marriage, but not same-sex civil unions.

You've answered a question jahoulih, just not the one I've asked.

In that case, I gather your question is, yet again, "What about polygamy?"

See above.

http://www.fodors.com/community/fodorite-lounge/maine-vote.cfm#comment-6042284

I don't think an idiotic question like that even merits a respsone. Perhaps a smack across the face, but not a response.

In Canada the courts started ruling in favour of gay marriage about a decade ago. In 2005 the federal government formally changed the definition of marriage to: "the lawful union of 2 persons to the exclusion of all others".

Who in their right mind would argue with that?

And no, you can't marry your pet hamster, or a corpse, or a baby, or your mother, or a fire hydrant, or any other weird thing people against gay marriage can come up with. Incest for example is not lawful and it along with many other things like capacity etc. have long been addressed in other sections of our marriage legislation.

Religious officials can refuse to marry any couple they want, no different than before.

Now I realize there are people who believe we are a communist country that, paradoxically, is but one halal pizza & wings away from total Islamic subjugation, but come on. Gay marriage is a no brainer people.

Polygamy will never be legalized because in order to do that, we'd have to make some complicated and pretty fundamental changes in many legal areas across the board and that really would turn things upside down in a way that gay marriage does not.

I've heard that some Canadian Mormon sects are planning on gearing up to challenge the marriage act, arguing that polygamy should be permitted on Charter grounds of freedom of religion.

Good luck with that and I hope they have deep pockets because it will be one long and very expensive exercise in futility.

"A woman or man identifies themselves as the "B" in LGBTG and has a relationship with a man and a woman. Please explain your rationale as to why they should not be allowed to marry their partners."

'sigh'. Okay Ryan, I'll bite just this once. Bisexual does not mean polygamous or promiscuous, it just means you're open to the idea of fancying a man OR a woman. Like brunette OR blonde. A bisexual is just as likely to be monogamous as the next person. If you don't get that basic fact, then you'd be better to just bow out of the discussion now. This thread isn't about educating school children.

"Earlier this week, Stickney said he was requesting prayers statewide, and the Web site for Protect Marriage Washington said: "As you may know, we have seen amazing things happen at every critical juncture of this campaign. ... Let's pray the Reject R-71 effort across the finish line!""

What a repulsive character. You know, when the Civil Partnership Act was being debated in the British Houses of Parliament, the only objection that the right wing fundies even DARED to make was that it should be extended to co-habiting sisters, or parent/adult child, or two friends. An argument swiftly rejected for missing the whole bloody point. No one even dared to suggest that gay couples should not have equal protection under the law with married couples.

So it's completely out of the realm of possibility that in a country of 300 million, there is not one person who is bisexual that can be a relationship with a man and a woman. Fine. Clearly you've studied the issue Kate and have confirmed that fact.

The LGBT community at Duke would disagree.

http://lgbt.studentaffairs.duke.edu/faqs/bisexuality.html


"Myth: Bisexual people are promiscuous hypersexual swingers who are attracted to every woman and man they meet. Bisexual people cannot be monogamous, nor can they marry or live in traditional committed relationships. They could never be celibate.

Reality: Bisexual people have a range of sexual behaviors. Like lesbians, gay or heterosexual people, some have multiple partners, some have one partner, and some go through periods without any partners. Promiscuity is no more prevalent in the bisexual population than in other groups of people."

Let's ignore your faulty assumption that the only people in this country that would want plural marriages are muslims and mormans. (Despite the fact that a well known University says exactly the opposite of what you stated.)

I then reiterate the question, please explain your rationale as to why they should not be allowed to marry their partners.

I'm open minded and willing to understand the difference. As I stated previously, to me it's faulty logic to say that one part of the traditional definition of marriage in this country - a marriage between one man and one woman - doesn't apply but one part does. Either the entire definition is intellectually justifiable or the entire definition is flawed.

Not one person has yet to come up with a good answer for that simple question.

Where have I said that it's "out of the realm of possibility that in a country of 300 million, there is not one person who is bisexual that can be a relationship with a man and a woman." I have merely stated that bisexuality is attraction to both sexes. Beyond that, bisexual people are exactly the same as everybody else. SOME people have polygamous relations, some don't. Bisexuality is irrelevant to the issue of polygamy. Just because you're attracted to different kinds of people doesn't automatically follow that they want to marry them all!

At no point in my arguments have I stated 'the only people in this country that would want plural marriages are muslims and mormans.' In fact what I said earlier is:

"I don't care what consenting adults want to get up to. If it could be shown that polygamous relationships were in the MAJORITY equal and fair even - and consequently hurt no one - great, go for it, but sadly I think that's a long way from being true in most cases."

The MAJORITY. If the MAJORITY were equal and non-abusive in arrangement, whether that's bisexuals or anybody else, I wouldn't give a damn about polygamous marriage. But the fact remains that polygamous marriage legally sanctions inbalanced abusive relationships in many many cases. If you can't see the difference between that, and between a loving equal relationship between two gay adults, then you're frankly being pigheaded.

But, in the Netherlands, which I believe is the first country to have sanctioned gay marriage, you've already had the first polygamous marriage. Each member seemed perfectly happy and willing to live in that arrangement.

Regardless, by stating that certain assumptions can be made that may or may not be true in each case of polygamous marriage, then doesn't that not give the opponents of gay marriage the right to raise issues that may or may not be true in the case of gay marriage.

I recognize this is a very personal issue for you Kate. I don't mean to not take this issue seriously. But, for me it's an intellectual issue and one that raises broader issues that I believe can't be ignored. If gay marriage passes in NJ, it passes. Regardless of what I think the issue is one for the Supreme Court to eventually to sort out.

"then doesn't that not give the opponents of gay marriage the right to raise issues that may or may not be true in the case of gay marriage."

Well, they aren't any different to problems in straight marriages. So you go for it.

You really think bringing NAMBLA into the debate helps your cause? Certainly not true that group of pedophiles is at all representative of the gay community, but if issues that aren't central to the issue are allowed, then there you go. Leave Rush and his minion of morons the ability to use that issue as a valid point.

I had to look NAMBLA up - I'm not American, but I can't see your point. Old men leering over youthful people (of any sex) is hardly news or a reason to deny marriage to gay people. marriage as, after all, between consenting adults.

>>>But, in the Netherlands, which I believe is the first country to have sanctioned gay marriage, you've already had the first polygamous marriage<<<

Absolutely false. The right wing journal that published that story later made a clarification/retraction. Though I doubt all the right wing media that parroted the story bothered to make the same correction.

Sometimes it's very embarrassing to live in such an archaic society where this is even an issue.
I'm extremely sorry to all our gay friends and citizens to have to argue for equal rights. Imagine having to fight for the right to settle down into a dignified and shared life with a loved one.
I don't think I can.

The flaw in the polygamy argument is the original premise. Once the state sets exclusive standards for any situation or activity, they exclude all others. So all US marriage laws exclude whatever the imagination can conjure, polygamy, and incestual relationships and most exlcude same saex.

So laws are created for numerous reasons including the public good and societal mores. There are societies which approve incestual and polygamous relationships although this is diminishing with the increased indutrialization of the world.

Laws evolve and with greater acceptance of homosexuality, the laws should change to reflect that relationship. As everyone knows it is not new to the human condition and has been widely practiced for centuries.

What distrubs me most about denying gay rights or any civil rights, are those who are not willing to give others what rights they have.

You can use the Bible, biology, or just aburd arguments such as the need for a stable environment, it comes down to denying the rights of others.

There was a court case a few weeks back on this very subject. The lawyer who opposed gay marriage said the main reason for the opposition was that primary reason for marriage was procreation. The judge said that he recently married a 87 year old man and 82 year old woman, so according to that logic the marriage should be denied.

And let us carry this one step further. Does this mean that in every man/woman marriage there must a pre-nuptual committment to have children or tests for sterility?

The consequences whether forseen or unintneded are great.

Do not deny others what you have.

Apres_Londee

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp?pg=1

"I had to look NAMBLA up - I'm not American, but I can't see your point."

The point is this, if you're going to say that the quantitative aspect of the traditional definition of marriage is ironclad - one man, one woman - but not the gender aspect then you need better points than issues like woman get hurt. It allows for the intellectual room for the opposition to gay marriage to raise issues that are not central to the point, as well.

I don't believe you can intellectually turn around and say that issues not directly related to gay marriage that represent the seamier side of same sex relationships are invalid points, then turn around and use that seamier aspect of polygamy as a defense for the number 2.

You sure do like the word intellectual.

You're over-intellectualizing and convoluting a basic black and white stance that most people on this thread have taken (marriage between two consensual partners) by taking Point A and saying 'well if you believe A, then you really mean to say that you believe B through Z, right'

But hey, throw in a few red herrings, throw in some "intellectual" gobbledegook...whatever it takes. I love how you say this is an intellectual issue. No, Ryan, it's about peoples livelihoods. I'm glad that it's easy for your to sit back and scratch your chin in a library somewhere over a core civil rights issue that is affecting people on a daily basis. We're so glad you're there thinking deeply about it.

You must be a lawyer. You sure sound like one. All statistics and no humanity or emotion.

Are you pro-gay marriage, Ryan? You don't say...I heard a lot of pull-quotes, see some obscure URLs, a few off-topic discussions of rights for polygamists and then some bat-sh*t crazy stuff about bisexuals thrown in there for good measure...but never once do I hear your opinion on yea or nay for the issue at hand (you know, the one people are voting on all across the country?)

Then again, if you are a lawyer, that would explain why you can't give a straight answer on anything.

So, what is it? And please, no off-fielding this one . I may vomit if I have to read lengthy discourse without a straight answer.

Filmwill,
In Canada and the Netherlands, you've already had polygamists push for their inclusion in marriage. If gay marriage becomes the law, then you absolutely will have that raised as the next legal fight.

In terms of opinion, can you not read between the lines. I would have thought my opposition was clear. I've taken the same view that President Obama has on the issue.

Before you go off and assume that just because I don't believe in gay marriage I must be a homophobe, you really ought to ask if you know anything about who my friends are. More specifically, what their lifestyles are.

There are issues where people can disagree without being disagreeable.

Ryan, a private cohabitation agreement is not a marriage. Anyone can make such contracts- people have been doing so in the USA for years. It means nothing as far as legal marriage is concerned and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or deliberately trying to cloud the issue.

But some of Ryan's best friends are gay! He can't possibly be a homophobe!

jahoulih, perhaps it's a foreign concept to you to have friends that you disagree with on certain issues for a variety of reasons. In that case I can understand why you'd make a foolish comment. Maybe you're not used to being capable of maintaining friendships with people that don't have your exact view of the world or fit nicely into some perceived demographic that that is exactly like you are.

You missed the point. The fact that you have gay friends is not evidence that you are not a homophobe. The fact that you have no rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage, and keep coming up with bizarre and disingenuous arguments for your opposition, is evidence that you are a homophobe. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you may be able to rise above it.

I would have thought my rationale was pretty clear. My objection at this point is that it opens up a Pandora's Box of possibilities. I asked what should be a simple question - why are they different and why is two in a marriage sacrosanct but man and woman are not.

You also must have missed the point where I stated the issue will be decided I would think by the Supreme Court, based on their vastly superior knowledge of the Equal Protection Clause.

People are going to have different opinions on this issue. You understand the focal point of my objection. Not one response has come back with an argument that cannot be turned around as a reason to object to gay marriage. The points that have come back have been ancillary to the fundamental question of why two is ironclad but three is not.

Has there been a rationale counter in the legal world to my concerns that do not focus on issues like "well, the woman are trapped" or they "must be forced into it."

If you think the status of women in polygamous marriages is "ancillary," you have a rather strange understanding of the term.

Also, you apparently missed this post when it first appeared, and when I subsequently drew your attention to it:

http://www.fodors.com/community/fodorite-lounge/maine-vote.cfm#comment-6042284

If you don't think those or other arguments constitute a rational basis to oppose polygamy, then I suggest you consider yourself a supporter of polygamy. If you think any court in the United States would find that there is no rational basis to ban polygamy, you are kidding yourself. But that's what people do when they are trying to justify their irrational prejudices.

Let's be clear, there are laws against polygamy that are clearly within the framework of the US Constitution. Those laws have been tested over and over.

My point and issue isn't about the reality of one objective versus another, because it's pretty damn unlikely that if gay marriage does become the law that polygamy would soon follow.

BTW, I believe the comment you referenced was tied once again to the effect after a polygamy marriage and not the underlying raason why two carries more weight than a man and a woman. That would be like suggesting that men and women should not marry because some men cheat on their wives or beat them. A fact that is true, but one that cannot be assumed at the outset.

It is also frankly simplistic to assume that one must hate gay people because they object to gay marriage. Why in this instance is it assumed when there are numerous areas of real difference of opinion and the assumption isn't automatically "well you must hate that group." To me, that smacks of an argument intended to put the objector on the defensive, rather than address the underlying point for their objection. Once you decided to label someone as objecting just because they hate these people, then that leaves you free to not have to address their other concerns or objectives. Do you really believe President Obama is a homophobe? Because his view on civil unions is the same view that I have.

No doubt, there are homophobes who object simply for that reason. But, to assume all are simply isn't reality.

"Do you really believe President Obama is a homophobe? Because his view on civil unions is the same view that I have."

He has taken a politically expedient position. Are you running for something?

You continue to fail to articulate a rational basis for your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you now admit that the polygamy issue is bogus. I suggest once again that you examine your conscience for your real reasons.

<<If gay marriage becomes the law, then you absolutely will have that raised as the next legal fight.>>

How about we get through this fight first, then worry about the subsequent fights? A bit of putting the cart before the horse there.

<<Before you go off and assume that just because I don't believe in gay marriage I must be a homophobe, you really ought to ask if you know anything about who my friends are. More specifically, what their lifestyles are.>>

Really, Ryan? Where did I either a) assume you were anti-gay marriage or b) call you a homophobe? Please provide backup on that one. Or quote me, since you like quotes.

As far as my question about being a lawyer, I'm guessing I nailed that one on the head. What a guess, if I do say so myself!

I'm quite confident that Ryan is not a lawyer.

<<You must be a lawyer. You sure sound like one. All statistics and no humanity or emotion.>>

FilmWill:
Most lawyers I know are emotional over this issue and, in my experience tend to support gay marriage (not all of course).
Why do peope slam lawyers when they want to insult people!
They don't seem to do this when they are being sued, or are in the slammer and need help very quickly!!

Okay off my soapbox!!

This idea that because gays can marry the state must allow polygamists to marry too is (as I've said before) a red herring as is the idea that teacher's must teach about gay love in school. Or whatever fears people have that might become law if we allow two people to marry.

The state can constitutionally discriminate and limit who can marry. They can also allow gays to marry and still discriminate against polygamists because the state can argue they have complelling issues re polygamy that protect the citizens (confusion over heirs, large number of wives & which parents decide legal & medical issues, etc).

The state can not think up a good compleling reason why two people can not marry regardless of the sex - unless they bring in the religious aspect which is illegal to do.

"This idea that because gays can marry the state must allow polygamists to marry too is (as I've said before) a red herring as is the idea that teacher's must teach about gay love in school."

I think it was filmwill that made a similar comment earlier in the thread. But really, if gay marriage is legalized, why wouldn't/shouldn't there be gay sex ed in the classroom?

Why wouldn't/shouldn't students of whatever sexual orientation be taught how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized?

There is already sex ed in classrooms. Kids make comments all the time about sex and make derogatory comments about gays.
The newest expression is "That's so gay."

What is wrong with frank discussion in a sex ed curriculum that talks about important issues children already know about but have wrong stereotypes and misinformation about?

I think it's time people take their heads out of the sand (or any other places they stick them when they want to hide from reality).

"Before you go off and assume" should be fairly clear, I would think.

I was responding to your comment that gay "love" being taught in the classroom is a "red herring" used by opponents of gay marriage, nanabee. How is it a red herring, if it's something with which you apparently agree?

<<Before you go off and assume that just because I don't believe in gay marriage I must be a homophobe, you really ought to ask if you know anything about who my friends are.>>

Again, in case you didn't get it the first time: who's going off and assuming anything? SO let me get this right. The above statement was just a pre-emptive missive to me. Just in case I was sitting there already assuming you were a homophobe? Wow, that's fuzzy logic.

Again, I have neither assumed, insinuated nor called you anything. So maybe you're sensitive around being called homophobic...who knows why?


<<Why do people slam lawyers when they want to insult people!>>

Nanabee, I'm not slamming lawyers. I just merely noted that all Ryan's posts read like that of a lawyer...approaching an issue by deconstructing it and then rearranging it to have 15 different offshoot, unrelated paths just for the sake of confusing the crap out of everyone and taking away from the main point. Sorry, but that's been my experience with most lawyers I know and have worked with. A generalization, for sure, but why should we stop for lawyers? This thread is chock full of generalizations about gays already.

<<why wouldn't/shouldn't there be gay sex ed in the classroom?>>

Think the better question is: why would we even classify it as 'gay sex' and 'straight sex'...sex is sex, love is love. Everyone has different ways of doing practicing both.

I feel marriage is a union between a man and a woman. To me it's natural, I'm not religious at all.

Gay marriage hasn't had any effect on the sex education curriculum in Ontario. Why would it? Kids learn basic things about disease and pregnancy prevention.

And it's a red herring because it's not really an argument about sex ed, it's an argument about the so-called gay agenda and how it will be forced on the rest of the population if same sex marriage is legalized- "they'll start teaching our kids how to be gay in school" and all that nonsense.

Bingo, Apres.

If there's a gay agenda, according to some of those folks, I would pose the question: what is the straight agenda?

One could logically conclude that if there is a gay agenda, then there is also a counterpart for it.

Ok, I'll make it easier for you, cause clearly you didn't get it. "Before you go off and assume" was intended to stop you from tossing out the usual tactic of "then you must be homophobe." Obviously, you failed to understand the point because you suggested I was a homophobe.

Again I'll state that tossing out homophobe for everyone who disagrees with the idea of gay marriage is intended to end the debate.

In terms of the emotion of it, should that be the overriding concern in our society? In numerous issues the unfortunate reality is that sometimes the emotion of an issue or law is trumped by other considerations. That doesn't mean that one is incapable of empathy, it simply means that sometimes the concept of "the greater good" prevails.

What greater good?

You're only now asking that question, jahoulih? The "greater good" concept is essentially the basis for all legal arguments against gay marriage. If you hope to win the argument, you'd best understand the opposition.

What greater good?

>>>In terms of the emotion of it, should that be the overriding concern in our society? In numerous issues the unfortunate reality is that sometimes the emotion of an issue or law is trumped by other considerations<<<

You have it backwards. It's irrational emotion that drives the campaign against gay marriage.

<<Obviously, you failed to understand the point because you suggested I was a homophobe.>>

Ryan, with all due respect, are you that much of a dolt? Or do you just not read before you start typing. Again (for the third time now) where did I ever suggest in any of my posts that you were a homophobe?

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone having a conversation with a brick wall--that's kind of the way these back and forths are with you. READ MY ORIGINAL POST. Follow down from there. Then check back with me.

On that note, perhaps you are not a homophobe (or perhaps you are)...I have no idea, Ryan. I don't know you. But by nature of your stated stance and opposition to equal rights for gays, would you not say that you were anti-equality or perhaps (in a more positive light) pro-civil rights for some?

I love when folks against gay marriage say 'stop calling us bigots!' (no, Ryan, not that you are--had to caveat that so you don't wet your pants again). Well, if not bigots, what exactly is it that they are then? Please enlighten me. You can 'intellectualize' this all you want, but it's still the same line: you do not support equal, inalienable rights for all Americans--only some.

Ban all state recognition of all marriages all together!

Why are we allowing the government being involved in our intimate lives and in recognition of a traditionally religious based arrangement of an exchange of vows?

Let those who want to make a show of committment do so in any non-governmental way they want, recognized by whatever private organization they wish.

Then, if they wish, let them all come to the state to register a contract for future division of property. Custody plans based on parentage, either natural or by adoption, devised for the good of children should the contract be rescinded or broken.

A civil union for all, until such time it becomes uncivil!

Marriage is a rite, but not a right if not a right for all.

That'll take care of the problem.

>>Ryan: it simply means that sometimes the concept of "the greater good" prevails.>>

Yes that's exactly why when the white male population in the South decided the greater good would be for blacks to be second class citizens the government had to step in for the greater good to prevail to protect a class of citizens who were being discriminated against.

This is why the government should step in and do the same for gays who are obvioulsy discriminated against to the detriment of all in our society.

Greater good is a generic term for when society decides that one issue provides more benefit for a most than some. You're reading way too much into the word good. Greater good is well established phrase that indicates the view that legislation benefits society as a whole, not a validation that the "good" is tangible. It's the same phrase that is used when the government decides to use eminent domain to force someone out of their property.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Greater_Good

If you have a synonym for greater good, feel free to use it.

Ryan, I would say the greater good would be for gays to have the same or equal rights as the rest of society has - this would truly be for the greater good of society. Not just for a minority of religious people who want to impose their will on others.

Majority rule sometimes imposes not the greater good for all in society but for themselves just because they have the power, control and there are more of them.

Well Nanabee, that's why we have elected officials and a legal system. To sort these complicated issues out.

That's where it will be decided. Not on some travel related forum.

So greater good means "Gays are an abomination and we want to discriminate against them." Thanks for clarifying that.

That's where it will be decided. Not on some travel related forum.

Damn it, I'm leaving.

So greater good means "Gays are an abomination and we want to discriminate against them."

I;m not sure, I'll ask the President next time I see him if that is why he also supports civil unions.

Try examining your own conscience instead. There is a remote chance you'll find it more accessible.

Conveniently not one of the nay-sayers wants to answer my question about the definition of the 'straight agenda'?

Guess it's easier to sit behind the comfort of your keyboard and discriminate against and judge others place in society without having to look at your own sterling and perfect lives.

<<Try examining your own conscience instead. There is a remote chance you'll find it more accessible.>>

Right on. Easier to deflect. Deflect, deflect, deflect. Seems to be the M.O. of the anti-equality folks here when you poke a hole in their argument.

<<I;m not sure, I'll ask the President next time I see him>>

Somehow--and I'm just taking a wild guess here--I don't think you'll be seeing him anytime soon.

Please. We have numerous areas of law in this country where the law doesn't treat people equally.

Welcome to the club.

"the law has been pressed"

People can press the law whenever they want. Let us know when the law yields. Until then, you are desperately seeking a rationale for your bigotry.

Huh? Was that an attempt at an insult? I think we're entering the Twilight Zone again--what exactly was that rant about? It made no sense.

You're gonna have to try better than that, Ryan. Especially when you've fallen flat on your face in your argument.

Not quite sure I get the Dane Cook reference--maybe an attempt to seem relevant? Although Dane Cook is just a little bit 5 or 6 years ago.

Actually, it was an attempt to mock you as Dane Cook is pretty much the least funny person in America.

A review of your posts would suggest that he is, at worst, the second least funny person in America.

No, I'm actually quite funny. I have a standup routine where I do this whole Mario Cantone and meets Harvey Fierstein at a Klan rally. Just kills them everytime. I can even do the raspy Harvey voice.

oh ryan - you must be the funniest man in America -- hahahahaha.
this is why men should not be in charge of anything.
this is why women are so much better at being in charge of the world.

>>>Sure, in Canada and the Netherlands the law has been pressed to push for three. But, we're going to ignore that cause we don't have no real answer!!<<<

Really? I'm not aware of any "pushing for three" that's in fact gone on in Canada- there's muttering in the media about it and recently criminal charges were thrown out against a couple of Mormon wackos but that's it.

(pro-tip: throwing out criminal charges is not the same thing as a charter challenge)

We've had same-sex marriage in Canada for a while now and I can tell you first hand, reporting to you live from Toronto- there is no Pandora's Box. Polygamy is still illegal. There have been no plagues of frogs or locusts.

For reasonably sane and educated people, the entire thing should be a non-issue. There's not much more to say really.

lol apres londee! and the earth still revolves around the sun! funny how life goes on - despite the cries of the sky is falling if gays have equal rights.

Hi Nan,

>the AFDC (aide for dependent children) is for the children, not the mothers. How is this different from a man who has multiple children with multiple ex-wives?<

In the case at hand, the man was living on the government payments with multiple women in the same home.
...........................................
Hey FW,

I am not going to enter into a "did - didn't - did - didn't" exchange with you. My statements stand as written. Have a nice day.
..................................................
Hi Ry,

>to me it's faulty logic to say that one part of the traditional definition of marriage in this country - a marriage between one man and one woman - doesn't apply but one part does.

I think gov't should get out of the marriage game. In that case, religious groups can define religious unions anyway they wish. The State would define civil unions as a contractual relationship between any two people and state the rights and responsibilities of both.

I see no logical flaw, perhaps you can, in this. It is no different from writing provisions in the tax code that benefit only some people.

nanabee- amazing isn't it?

I have a question though- I don't understand what "civil unions" are, or the idea that government should get out of the marriage business.

In Canada marriage is a contract that is defined and protected by federal law. There's nothing religious in the definition of marriage at all. Which isn't to say people don't get married by religious officials in places of worship, but you aren't required to get married that way. You can get married by a Justice of the Peace. Makes no difference if you have a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony. It's still a marriage. And marriage brings with it far more rights and entitlement to assets than a common-law relationship (ie living together).

Is religion somehow tied up with the definition of marriage in the US? I don't get it.

Because couples have the right to be legally recognized by the state when they marry. A contractual relationship is not the same as marriage. Gays want to have the right to marry just like hetero couples have the right.

A religious ceremony can be performed in one's church but the couple must first get a license from the state. The states right to recognize marriage between two people is not to be confused with one's religious beliefs. Except in America where even though we have separation between church and state, apparently some people have forgotten this or don't care.

Thanks nanabee, so it's not so different then- marriage is a legal term that has nothing to do with religion. In that case, I really don't understand the whole "civil union" thing- sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

I guess if some people want to cling to weird, ignorant ideas that's their own business but they shouldn't be allowed to foist their personal prejudices on the rest of society.

<<My statements stand as written. Have a nice day.>>

How does my exchange with you fall into did/didn't/did? I asked you (twice) for ANY sort of proof on your statement that insurance companies are against gay marriage due to their fear about insuring same-sex married partners over their potential AIDS status. For which you still cannot provide/will not provide any sort of legitimate source for.

But, hey, if you want to make that into a did/didn't/did, thing go right ahead. Because, y'know, I guess it's easier to do that when you have no backup or proof for a supposed fact you're referencing.

Oh, and thanks, I plan to have a nice day.

>>Apres_Londee I guess if some people want to cling to weird, ignorant ideas that's their own business but they shouldn't be allowed to foist their personal prejudices on the rest of society>>

Yes very well said Apres!

filmwill - the more I think about it the more I think you are correct about insurance. Insurance carriers already provide insurance for single people or couples with AIDS (gay or straight). This disease is no different than many others for which insurance companies pay out to, again, couples or single people.
I think the idea that the insurance companies are against gay marriage is absurd.

Ryan says,

"But, for me it's an intellectual issue and one that raises broader issues that I believe can't be ignored."

Exactly, what would be those broader issues?

They would be discrimination, unacceptance, hate or fear of differences, unrational fear of gays, selfishness, the illegal insistence that one's religious preferences must dominate state policy.
Maybe Ryan can come up with a few more "broader issues."

nanabee, it's not only absurd--it's offensive. talk about gross generalizations from the Dark Ages (or maybe just the Reagan years): ...most gay people have AIDS, therefore insurance companies don't want to insure them.

What an uneducated, horrific thing to even think, nonetheless to actually say.

that's the problem filmwill, people like ryan unfortunately don't think. and it is an insulting thing to say. you are right to mention this and to point out the offensiveness of these remarks.

You should read the actual remarks - not filmwill's distorted projections - before characterizing them as offensive, nanabee. And saying people like Ryan and Ira don't think? Talk about insulting!!

Ira? I respect Ira, and I don't think I said anything about him.

It was Ira who commented on the insurance co's opposition to gay marriage.

<<If same-sex couples are permitted to marry, then one of them will be covered by the other's medical insurance. The ins cos are very worried that they will have to pay bug bucks to care for HIV/AIDS patients.>>

Care to demystify this comment for us then, beachplum? I'd love to get your insight into how the above statement does not infer exactly why I said.

This is (again, yes, again) why I have asked for the poster of that comment to provide ANY sort of backup, statistics...or any sort of legitimate proof of that statement.

I'm not surprised at all that no one wants to tackle that, cuz all it is is just a plain old ignorant statement from the Dark Ages.

Sure. I'm projecting. What else is there to do when no one can actually justify this statement? But let's deflect onto me...deflect, deflect, deflect.

I could care-a-less what rational is being used. To say that same-gender marriage has boarder societal ramifications that can't be overcome is pure BS.

As if society is going to collapse because of its implementation. Talk about hyperbole and intellectual laziness.

Remember, traditional marriage IS the minority.

Then there is the similar case of using scare tactics that still happen today with interracial marriages. Remember the justice of the peace who recently refused to marry a black man and a white woman because he was worried for their children who'd have to grow up being discriminated against?

The ruse that insurance companies won't insure couples, the polygamists will be able to marry, the children must be protected, schools will have to teach about gay love, the time is not right, blah, blah, blah the excuses for denying equality never go away.

I always find it fascinating when they state that schools will have to teach about gay love and must be protected.

My answer to them is: What about gay children? Or would you prefer to deny them any level of dignity?

I'm trying to think what school ever officially ever taught me about love and family anyways.

Yes, sex ed in school can only be taught to kids with parents permission. Those parents who don't want their kids to receive sex education can request the kids do something else during this time, and the kids aren't penalized.

nanabee when you have said this:

"oh ryan - you must be the funniest man in America -- hahahahaha.
this is why men should not be in charge of anything.
this is why women are so much better at being in charge of the world."

It is like you are talking out of both sides of you mouth because you also said this:

"They would be discrimination, unacceptance, hate or fear of differences, unrational fear of gays, selfishness, the illegal insistence that one's religious preferences must dominate state policy.
Maybe Ryan can come up with a few more "broader issues.""

Those two statements contradict each other in my view.