Democrats should support the sanctity of marriage.

[Ravy]

I, like many Americans, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That said, I also don't believe that the government has any role in the marriage business.

You see, I was born in a midwestern state, on a farm. I went to church regularly when I was growing up, and still do on occasion. I believe marriage is a religious institution.

The government should not offer any religious institution, even marriage, with special rights or tax-breaks.

The only way government can aid in the sanctity of marriage is to stay out of it. Completely. If marriage is a religious institution, as I believe, why can it be performed by a ship captain, or a justice of the peace? How can it happen automatically when a couple lives together for however many years? Doesn't that somehow cheapen the institution of marriage?

The government SHOULD be able to perform civil unions. They should sell licenses, require blood tests for the public health, and give tax breaks, inheritance and other legal rights to spouses who have been legally civilly united.

If someone wants to be married, let them get a civil union license and go to the religious institution of their choosing and have the ceremony performed. All legal rights should come from their lawful civil union, not the marriage.

Polls have shown that although a majority of Americans are against gay marriage, they do (narrowly) support civil unions. Why do we joust at this windmill?

Gay couples deserve the same rights as any other couple. What is the insistance that their union be called "marriage"? To have it the same as everyone else? Fine, I agree with that-- lets just call it civil union.

[arcos]

1. Popcorn time!

:popcorn:

[entanglement]

2. My oh my

Getting the :popcorn:
Ok, go!

[keith the dem]

3. I believe this is the way it is done

in the Netherlands. I belong to a church that does Gay marriage and think that the government has no right to control what we believe.

[KittyWampus]

73. Absolutely. States Should Require & Provide CIVIL UNION CONTRACTS

and people can then decide if they want a MARRIAGE CERMONY in some house of worship or whatever.

[cornermouse]

4. I know this is going to get lost in the deluge, but

if the republicans keep pushing all these make divorce impossible initiatives, I think there's going to be a lot less marrying and a lot more cohabitating going on.

[BR_Parkway]

5. You won't get any arguement from me on any of that, my brother lives in

Germany and it's what they did, no muss, no fuss, no hassle. The problem here in the US is if someone has sex outside of marriage (boy/girl kind) they want anyone and everyone to be able to officiate over that out of wedlock screwing, because their hang up is sex and all things sexual.

[FreedomAngel82]

61. I think

if you are going to compromise with people like the republicans and their fundies civil union is fine by me. Why? It's just a name. As the Shakespeare play "Romeo and Juliet" says: "if a rose is called by any other name is it still a rose?" As long as there is equality with it and the LGBT people get the same benefits with marriage. That is what counts.

[KG]

6. gay marriage threatens the 'sanctity of marriage' how, exactly?

i'm dying to know this.

[Ravy]

12. I didn't mention that particularly...

I don't think that legal marriage has any sanctity at all. That was the point of my post.

Legal marriage and religious marriage are apples and oranges. As long as they both call themselves "marriage" we will be stuck in this big circle of public opinion masking a solution that I believe a majority of Americans would support.

I said I believed marriage was between a man and a woman. I am also a Christian and believe Jesus Christ is my savior. My religion is separate from my politics.

I do not want to push my religious views on anyone, much less have the government legislate my beliefs on others. If a church wants to marry gay couples, that would be fine by me. I don't think that MY church would, but that is because of our religious beliefs. I have no problem with other churches believing differently.

Therefore, the sanctity of MY marriage is founded in MY religion, and unaffected by what other religions and government institutions do.

[SidDithers]

131. Ok, so let me get this straight...

It would be OK with you if a gay couple first got a civil union contract (some might call this a marriage license) from the government, and was then religiously married in their own church as long as their church agreed to perform the ceremony.

Kinda sound like you support gay marriage after all.

Sid

[Deaniac20]

27. it threatens our election

we don't have enough political capitol to ever sanction gay "marriage" because people won't stand for that. But civil unions will be OK if we point out that it increases monagamy, thus reduces AIDS people will like it.

[mtnsnake]

44. Bingo. If Democrats support same-sex marriage as part of our platform

in the future we'll never win another election again.

Take it even further. If Democrats are PERCEIVED as supporting same-sex marriage, we'll never win another election. That's just the way it is, regardless of how any of us feels about whether or not it should just be between a man and a woman or not.

[donco6]

58. Then by all means . . .

for the sake of election-winning strategy, let's just dump that honorable idea and sacrifice gays on the altar of political expediency.

:sarcasm:

[Marnieworld]

80. Yes!

Thank you. Yes!

[Bluebear]

85. "First they came for the gays....."

Realize then that in your enthusiasm to win elections that this assault on gays is just the first little experiment in the Republican agenda. Camps can also accommodate liberals, non-christians, 'abortionists', etc.

[KG]

52. that wasn't the question i posed.

besides, i already understand that the right things should only be done when it's convenient for the dem. party.

[B Calm]

28. There will be small groups of happily married gay couples

roaming the streets and gang raping straight married people. Thus, this will turn the straight person into a flaming homosexual and will divorce his partner!

[unsavedtrash]

7. tell me again why I don't deserve a marriage.

I just can't get enough of people telling me how my relationship with the woman I have shared my life with for the last 10 years is somehow less than a man and woman being married.

[xchrom]

8. ya could just wanna go catatonic, couldn't ya?

[ima_sinnic]

14. hit and run -- because there IS no argument to be made

... they used to say the same thing about interracial marriage, back in the 40s and 50s, how the country would be destroyed by it. apparently the poster feels that his marriage is so weak that it can be destroyed by what other people do. ya have to feel sorry for someone so threatened.

[mitchtv]

9. 28 years here I think we should pay less taxes

than full citizens. What galls me is whole clans of strates being allowed to immigrate into this country on one marriage, and I can't bring one person in Fuck that shit and anyone who stands in my way. including so called Dems.
Actually Ravy has a very good point the govt should not be in the marriage business, strate or gay, they should all be civil unions Marriage would be well confined to churches. An entirely reasonable concept. It is after all a legal document.

[Ravy]

15. I think you should be able to...

... if you find a church to do it.

I consider marriage a religious ceremony. The fact that government calls their legal unions by the same name is one of the major hurdles keeping you and your spouse from getting the the legal recognition you truly deserve.

[KittyWampus]

75. NOONE Deserves A "Marriage" That's Perfomed By THE STATE

it is that fucking simple so get the chip of your shoulder.

If you want to "Marry" in a religious ritual then fine...

go find a house of worship and congregation and do so...

NOONE can stop you as long as that church is fine with it.

The state has NO BUSINESS doing anything now percieved as "religious" or do you not believe in seperation of church and state.

ANY TWO PEOPLE who want to join their households legally gets a CIVIL UNION.

The "MARRIAGE CEREMONY/RITUAL" is optional and should only be done outside the statehouse.

[gollygee]

115. I *have* a marriage that was performed the THE STATE

and get that chip off your shoulder about it. I'm as married as you are. Get over it.

[GaYellowDawg]

10. I grew up in a church and still go on occasion, too...

Here's how I look at it:

I don't think that heterosexuals have been too good about respecting the sanctity of marriage, what with the high divorce rate and high cheating rate. When you've got a thrice-divorced Rush Limbaugh screaming about protecting marriage and getting away with it, there's a real disconnect in this country.

If two men or two women want to get married, and they belong to a church or denomination or religion that will marry them, then more power to them. I find expressions of hate - hate speech, killing, war - to be much more of a concern than expressions of love.

[ixion]

11. listen, marriage has NO sanctity whatsoever...it's a creation of the State

and nothing more.

It's bundled in with a religion, mind you, but the Certificate of Marriage is a document on file with the State, not with GOD.

[Ravy]

16. I agree with you.

Marriage, as it is legally defined, has no sanctity.

However, marriage as a religious institution has whatever sanctity that people wish to afford it. Roman Catholics, for instance, have some particular beliefs regarding marriage that are not supported many other churches.

So what is the problem with the government performing and recognizing civil unions as they do marriage today, and leaving marriage (in the future) to churches.

[ixion]

17. separation of Chruch and State is the problem, IMO

This is one of those gray areas that no one talks about, but having the government do the paperwork (and enforcement) is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State.

I'm all for individual Sects or churches deciding on who can marry who. That's what the Freedom of Religion is all about. But having the government manage who can marry who is just not right, IMO.


Essentially, civil unions are equivalent to marriage. In fact, that's all a marriage REALLY is. The rest of it is just garlands and wrapping. A church won't marry you until you have the proper papers from the government, which negates the church as a manager.

[Ravy]

19. Governments do that now.

To be legally married, you have to have a license from the government.

I believe my solution would not change that at all. In fact, that the government would not even share the term "marriage" with other institutions would seem to me to separate church and state a bit further.

Was there anything in my posts that lead you to believe otherwise?

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Actually, it isn't a mixing of church and state

Marriage is performed by a person authorized by the state to do so. That is generally a member of the clergy. However, there are others who are also authorized by the state who are not clergy. Justice of the Peace, Court Officials, Ship Captains, etc., etc., etc.

The state makes no distinction between clergy and non-clergy when it (for lack of a better word) 'deputizes' a person to perform a civil joining of two people.

This concept gets muddied when we witness a church wedding. It appears the clergy is performing the ceremony as a member of the clergy and sectioned by the church. But that's not entirely true. That clergy is acting in a dual role. As an agent of the church (for the religious aspects of the marriage) and as an agent of the state (for the civil aspects of the ceremony. (Witness the words commonly used in weddings: "by the power vested in me by the State of SSSSSS, I now pronounce you ...... )

I am not taking a stand on how this should be, but it seems pretty clear that all marriages are civil unions. It is only when a member of the clergy is involved that it is 'sanctified'. I was married in a civil ceremony involving a court clerk, Sparkly, and me. No one else was present. Just three people and no clergy. Am I married or in a civil union?

Going on step further, if we accept that all marriages are, for legal purposes, 'civil unions' already, how can that possibly be a deniable right? Seems to me everyone is entitled to it. Now marriage is another issue. If we can accept that civil unions are a right applicable to anyone, we have inherent, and very real, equality.

If a member of the clergy is willing to perform a ceremony on two people of the same gender, that's the sole business of that clergy member and the two people being joined. It is not an issue for the state any more than, say, the taking of communion in a Christian religious rite (like a Mass). The state doesn't regulate the giving of sacraments. Baptisms are not the province of the state. Why should the religious aspect of marriage be?

I guess I *am* willing to take a position. My position would be that no one, no couple, no matter what their gender, is 'married' under the law. All are joined by a civil union *for legal purposes*. The 'marriage' side of it is a private matter with no legal standing.

If one can accept this stand as fair, reasonable, and (at least in my view) logical, then one must accept that any two people over the age of majority can be civilly joined and be granted all rights, obligations, and privileges that come with that. Period.

The "marketing" side of this, however, is the real hurdle. By custom and long standing acceptance, these two distinct joinings (civil union and marriage) have been intertwined to the point that they seem, to the average person, inseparable or worse .... one and the same. And trying to "sell" their separation and distinction is, in my view, a very, very difficult task - particularly in today's overheated climate of religious fervor.

[mandyky]

29. Exactly - you go to the city hall or county seat

and purchase your marriage license, and then follow the process necessary to fulfill it (in some states you need certain medical tests run, etc).

This whole sanctity of marriage deal is a straw man. Your marraige is as sanctified as you make it. People who swing or have open marraiges are what they want. Some wives are bitches and some husbands are bastatrds. Whether 2 men or two women get married does NOTHING to the sanctity of anyone else's marraige. PERIOD.

[KittyWampus]

81. "Marriage' As The Word Used To Denote Joining Of Two People Into

one household WITH THE BLESSING OF A RELIGION is longstanding and deeply embedded into our collective consciousness.

It is NOT going away and it is futile to try and get MOST Americans to change this conception.

Trying to pin YOUR ideal (which I AGREE with) onto others is where the problem is rooted.

1. People have a right to belong to a Religion that says same sex couples are NOT able to be sanctified.

2. People have a right to belong to a Religion that says same sex couple ARE able to be sanctified.

3. NOONE has the right to expect the state to refuse same sex couples from legally joining their households.

[WillowTree]

41. Sorry, but that's where you're wrong.

Marriage was a religious rite centuries before any government ever got involved and separation of church and state was violated when it did. The government, therefore, needs to figure out a way to get it's messy fingers out of the whole marriage business and if it wants to confer certain civil rights, responsibilities and/or privileges to family units, it should find its own mechanism to do so and leave marriage alone.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. That is already the case. No technical need for change

The state is involved in marriage only to the extent of the legal binding of two people. It has no say whatever in the 'sanctity' (i.e.: religious) aspects of it.

[KittyWampus]

77. IMO, The Word Marriage Absolutely Has A Connotation Of Sanctity

the overwhelming, vast majority of Americans think of Marriage as a Ceremony, Ritual with a sacred element to it.

That is why the word 'Marriage' should be stripped from the statehouse contract any two people sign when they officially and legally join their households.

[gollygee]

118. At least now you've got something right

the "in your opnion" part. A majority of Americans seem to think of marriage as sacred, but I'm hoping that won't be the case in another generation or two. And we don't dismiss the rights of people based on majority rule in this country.

[mopaul]

13. make marriage PERMANENT and outlaw divorce altogether

let's get real biblical

[Nimrod]

18. I completely understand what you're saying

The concept of "marriage" is a religious institution. It's a word that we're fighting over, and not much more. I think people put WAY too much importance on an arrangement of eight letters.

My personal opinion is that the religious concept of marriage was created to allow greater domination of that lesser subspecies known as "women" (massive sarcasm). For the longest time, only women wore wedding rings, and they were literally "property sold" signs. Early Anglo wedding ceremonies had the groom hitting the bride over the head with a shoe to show who was her new master.

As far as I'm concerned, my partner and I are already married - and we've never gotten near a church or filled out a single form. What we really need access to is durable power of attorney and some shared health insurance. We don't give two shits whether "God" thinks we're married or not - WE think we are, and that's what's important to us.

Marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, durable power of attorney - it's all semantics. REAL marriage concerns two people and two people only (unless you're poly, which is fine too).

[Stinky The Clown]

78. "It's a word that we're fighting over"

Exactly true!

And I agree with the rest of your post.

We were married in a civil cermony down at the 'ol courthouse. How can we be called 'married'? :shrug:

We're civilly jopined, to be sure. We're emotionally committed, to be sure. But 'married'? Its just a word. Shorthand made all the more important by long common usage and misunderstanding of what it really means in ths case - a civil union.

[bklyncowgirl]

20. I agree with your point

The legal rights should be tied in with the "Civil Union" which is the legal joining of two people. Couples who get a marriage license are really entering into a civil union.

The churches should be able to do whatever they want. If they want to marry same sex couples, that's fine. If their religion forbids such marriages that's fine too. What counts as far as the law goes is the papers you signed at city hall.

I could live with this but then I'm a straight woman who is on what's probably permanent leave from the Catholic Church.

[HockeyMom]

21. Civil law and religious "laws"

I agree. A license issued by the state is a contract. It is not sacred, holy, or a sacrament, as our genius President likes to call it. An atheist receives a sacrament of holy matrimony when they go get a license from the state? I sure they will love knowing that. There is far, far too much mixing of religion in this. I agree. We should call all licenses issued by government civil unions, for both straights and gays. Leave the words marriage, holy, sacred for ceremonies in churches for those people who want them.

The churches can refuse to marry anybody they want, but the state can recognize them. Case in point is the Catholic Church and divorce. They won't marry a divorced person, but you can certainly get a civil marriage license (contract) after a divorce - many times even.

[Stinky The Clown]

79. "but the state can recognize them"

I'd change one word ..... put in 'must' in place of 'can'.

[markus]

22. Take a deep breath, everyone

I believe this poster has suggeted decoupling marriage (the religious institution, sacrament, what have you) from civil union (what you have to do to access certain legal rights).

While it's a non-starter, please stop and think. This is not hostile. I'm a very strong supporer of gay rights. I am still angry that my state passed an amendment.

While this would go nowhere unless it were debated post-Rapture, it's certainly a reasonable point of discussion.

[matcom]

23. Calling NSMA!!!

i've got :popcorn: ready

is it too early for a beer?

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

82. Too Bad You Didn't Take The Time To Follow What Poster Is Actually Saying

[gollygee]

24. "marriage" is not a religious term

if religious people want their own special ceremony, they can come up with their own name. They can't take up a name that's already being used.

[KittyWampus]

83. Historically Marriage IS A Religious Institution

[gollygee]

114. No it isn't

you saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. In some cultures, the state and religion have been the same. That isn't the case here. Marriage has always been governmental. If some other government intertwined with religion, that's their problem. People in this country don't have to suffer for it.

[Spazito]

25. My husband and I were married at our City Hall and we received

a MARRIAGE certificate not a CIVIL UNION certificate. There are those who would like to reserve 'marriage' solely for church ceremonies and that is inappropriate. Church ceremonies actually 'bless' the legal action and can perform the legal niceties only by 'the power vested in' them by government.

To restrict marriage to only church rituals is inappropriate and fundamentally changes the responsibility from a secular government to a religious organization.

It is interesting that those who push 'civil union' versus 'marriage' are quick to say it is not homophobia yet the question of marriage being solely belonging to the church didn't arise until then. When I was married, no one tried to tell my husband and I that we had had a 'civil union' ceremony or tried to give us a 'civil union' certificate.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. self-delete

[thebaghwan]

31. Yes, 38 years ago we got married in Beverly Hills in the office of a judge

I remember he did not charge us for the ceremony as I was in the Military. A couple of monthsa later we had a religious ceremony in which our civil marriage was blessed by the Catholic Church.

I do believe that in Mexico all weddings are civil and if you want a religious wedding that is up to you after the civil affair.

Would someone be good enough to play the devil's advocate and tell us why gay marriage is bad?? Our family has not been able to come up with a negative reply to that issue.

[KittyWampus]

84. That's The Point, Your Contract SHOULD Say "Civil Union Certificate"

and doing so would solve the whole freaking problem.

ANYONE who joins their household with another should be required to get a civil union certificate, with the "marriage" purely voluntary.

[Spazito]

92. Why should the law have to change?

The only reason this is being pursued, imo, is because of the issue of gay marriage and those who would oppose it. There was NOT the question of what the certificate should be called when I was MARRIED at City Hall, it was nowhere to be found as an issue therefore, imo, the issue has arisen SOLELY as a way to discriminate against gays having the right to MARRY and that is simply discrimination.

[opiate69]

And I say the contract from your church should say

"Religious Union Certificate".

[gollygee]

124. Why should I give up my *marriage* to make you feel better?

and why should gay people not be able to get married to make you - or anyone else - feel better.

I am married. I like being married. My marriage did not begin in a church or with any god associations, and I don't intend to add that to my marriage. I like my marriage the way it is and I will not allow people to take away or change the name of my marriage. I'm betting a lot of godless people feel the same way.

[B Calm]

26. If marriage is a religious institution, why do you have to get a

marriage license from the state before a church can marry you?

[Az]

39. Because the current way rolls two functions into one

The government currently takes part in both the legal and social aspects of a marriage. It fulfills its legal duties of guaranteeing that there is not a risk of incompatible genetics involved and recognising the commitment legally. But it also attempts to involve itself in the religious aspect of the ceremony by not recognising its seperate nature.

Cut the two apart. The government should just be issuing civil unions. Marriage itself should be derived from other means.

[Spazito]

43. Doesn't separating 'marriage' and 'civil union' inherently

create inequities? If I choose to marry at City Hall therefore I receive a 'civil union' certificate and someone else choses to marry in a church and therefore receives a 'marriage' certificate does that not say, by inference, one is 'blessed' by God and the other is not? I see the intent to confer marriage only by churches as a red herring to deprive and separate gay marriage from straight marriage and that is discrimination, imo.

Churches can choose whom they wish to allow receiving the blessing of their union now and will continue to do so if the government recognizes the rights of gays to marry.

This argument is no different, imo, than the wedge issue of 'late term abortions', the intent being to incrementally make abortion illegal step by step.

[Az]

48. No

The certificate is provided by the government. It is a civil union certificate. Marriage certificate is what is currently issued. If any marriage certificate is provided by a religious or social function it has no legal impact. Its just a peace of paper in this case. The only document that has any impact is the civil union.

Even should the government determine that gays have the right to be married they cannot compell churchs to perform the ceremonies. That is clear Church/State seperation law.

[Spazito]

53. Then why the push to have different names on the certificates?

one being civil union certificate and the other a marriage certificate? As we know, how something is 'framed' has a great deal to do with the message being sent, ie privatization of SS versus personal accounts. If it is just a piece of paper, what does it matter what it is called? Why try and change it to civil union if not occuring in a church?

[Az]

54. It levels the playing field

It makes the legal matter even and the social aspect is defined by whatever denomination the couple belongs to.

[Ravy]

93. Here is the reason I see to change it....

It seems very easy for republicans to vote laws (by big majorities) against gays getting married. People tend to think of marriage as a religious institution in that context, and it presumably it offends their religious beliefs.

A small majority, but none-the-less a majority, believe that there should be civil unions for gays. Why the polling disconnect? When you say civil union, you take the church out of the equation.

When you split the legal and the religious message, the question becomes clearer.

Republicans would have to change their efforts to come up with a legal justification for their current discrimination of gay couples, without the help of the religious argument. I believe there would be a groundswell of states that would support my idea *IF* they could get the laws changed to where civil unions are granted all the rights that marriages are given now.

The current laws discriminate against a lot of good Americans, in my opinion. That alone should be the reason for the change.

[Spazito]

102. The reason there are those who would support 'civil union'

but not support 'marriage' is because it would be seen as being less than marriage, imo. If it is seen as 'less than' it then becomes discriminatory. If that were not the case, the word 'marriage' being used would be moot, as it has been in the past for couples like myself and my husband where there was NO issue of whether our union should be called a 'civil union' as opposed to a marriage even though we married outside of any church. It is the gay issue not the religious issue that is at hand and couching it in religious terms doesn't negate the attempt to discriminate, imo.

[Fifth of Five]

69. Churches already choose....

"Churches can choose whom they wish to allow receiving the blessing of their union now and will continue to do so if the government recognizes the rights of gays to marry."

I believe this cuts to the heart of the issue. Churches already decide who they will and will not marry.

Those who say that allowing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays are throwing up a huge red herring.

I have personally (don't recall if I've seen it printed, or uttered by "leaders" of the anti-gay marriage crowd) heard this argument being made by those who oppose gay marriage, and it is typical of the scare tactics used by the right on every issue. An excellent way to get what you want is to scare people.

[Stinky The Clown]

86. Actually, I see what you're saying but come at it from the opposite side

I'd suggest that the state does *not* have the power to 'marry' .... but *only* to create civil unions.

If one accepts that, then Jerry and Mrs. Falwell are in a civil union. They only became 'married' when the clergy got involved.

If one accepts that, then everyone who is currently, legally married, is, in fact, in a civil union. The class of people who would have to "give up" something under this thinking is everyone who is a hetero marriage. Gays who 'marry' under this thinking would get exactly what their hetero counterparts get ... civil unions.

The issue, to me, is the word 'marriage' ... not the underlying facts and legalities. Any recognized religious institution can choose, based on nothing more than their own beliefs, who is actually able to sue the term 'marriage'.

Sadly, this is a huge and wide cultural chasm that, in my view, in taday's world, can not be bridged easily.

Look, I'm fully on the side of gay equality, including gay 'marriage'. That is an unquivocal statement. I am not of the 'throw gays over the side for political expediency' crowd. But I'm also a realist and I'm wrestling with this issue as much as anyone. Sadly, to me, it seems the whole thing is muddied by centuries of custom. The word 'married' has truly dual meanings. That's the stumbling block, to me. The word. Not the facts or the concepts.

[Spazito]

89. Where I would differ with you is in this:

"The word 'married' has truly dual meanings". It does not have a dual meaning, imo, and that is exactly the point. Those who want to differentiate by making marriages performed outside of a church to be titled 'civil unions' versus those performed within a religious setting be titled 'marriage' are trying to make it a dual meaning when, in fact, marriage is simply that, marriage as defined by the law not the church.

I would say, if the church wants to differentiate between the two then the church should be the one to change their wording not try and force the law to change it.

[Stinky The Clown]

111. I don't agree

From common usage both the state and the church use the word and 'own' it. You may not like that. I may not like that. But that's a fact. They each have a definition of it. Those definitions have similarities, but they also have essential and fundamental differences.

And I believe you'd have to agree that no amount of work will ever get every religion to change their use of the word, much less their definition of it. It simply will never happen.

I'm on your side on this. But I just can't see how we could ever hope to get the churches to change their use and meaning of the word. We have a far greater chance of getting the state to change ... because we *are* the state.

It would be awful if there were a viable way to come to some real equality in the way human couples are treated, only to see the side wanting the equality being intransigent over a word.

The issue of gay equality is huge. That's our target.

Semantics are far, far less important.

Hypothetically, if we could get full equality for gay pairings - everything exactly identical in every way shape and form except for the word, would the word 'marriage' be a deal breaker?

I'm not saying I think 'gay marriage' should be called 'gay almost but not quite the same as hetero marriage'. But in the end, it is just a word.

So my view is take the word 'marriage' away from any civil aspect of it and give it to the religious aspects of it. Everyone has it taken away equally. gay or hetero, it doesn't matter. We would then all be civilly joined. Gays give up nothing to hets and gays *get* all the legal benefits that hets currently have.

Once decoupled, the term 'marriage' then goes to the churches. And we both know there are many churches willing to confer the term on gay couples.

That, in my view, will win in the end. It is true equality. And the only ones who had to 'give' were the hets.

[More Than A Feeling]

121. Well said, sir!

:yourock:

[Spazito]

123. Why is okay for the church to be 'intransigent' over a word

yet not okay for those who wish to maintain the status quo in that marriage is a legal word, not a religious word. I can only re-iterate the word marriage was fine and dandy when my husband and I were married in City Hall, no one brought up the question, NO ONE. It has only arisen when it comes to gay marriages so it seems to me the issue is gays not marriage as an institution.

Why wasn't it an issue when my husband and I were married if there has always been that difference? No one asked me what religion I was married under, no one asked me what church I belonged to when I was married, etc.

The churches have always had the right to choose whether and to whom they wish to confer their blessings on a union and will continue to have that right. The churches do not have the right to marry anyone under the eyes of the law, only to bless that union.

Is the intent to give the churches the direct legal authority to perform a marriage as opposed to 'having the power vested by' government? If so, would that not make the church no longer separate from the state?

[immoderate]

32. WRONG!

Marriage predates religion and government. It is a tribal/social/psychological institution. You could say it's a meme. Other animals have marriages without need for religion or government.

--IMM

[Az]

40. Then you are agreeing

If government is not necissary for the social functions of marraige to be fulfilled then it should get out of as much of it as possible and only fulfill the legal end of the process. That is recognition of the union of two people in a social format. ie Civil Unions. Leave the rest to whatever social function the couple adheres to.

[KittyWampus]

87. WRONG! Tribes ALWAYS Required Membership In A Group Religion Or Shared

world view and to deviate would mean expulsion and probably death due to lack of resources.

Use of natural resources belonging to a Tribe is reserved for those who adhere to that Tribes' Ethos.

For most of mankind's history, Religion was not seperated conceptually
from Tribal Law.

It's only very recently that "Church and State" were seperated.

[immoderate]

101. WRONG^2: Some tribes may have done that...

but I'm just as sure that there was a mixing of tribes with tolerance of variation, as well as those who lived outside of normal tribal life.

What I'm saying here is that marriage is a custom that need not rely on tribal or religious tradition to exist. It has taken many forms in its various societies. And (I think i'm agreeing with Az here) governement can and should take such interest in it as will help people and not infringe on their rights.

--IMM

[More Than A Feeling]

33. Your proposal is the only sensible solution

civil unions for all, marriage for those who have the religious ceremony, and all the rights and what-not come from the government and the civil union. Churchs can perform the ceremony for whomever they choose. That way, I can disagree with you about who marriage is for (and I do), but it won't matter because everyone will have their equal rights under the law.

Do you think that others who also believe in "the sanctity of marriage", would go for this, especially those on the opposite political side?

[warrior1]

34. A church

is vested by the government. A church can't give you a divorce and certainly can't marry unless it has been vested.

Keep the religion out of the state issue license to marry. It's a ceremony that is given in a church. Thus, anyone should be able to marry their partner without the church butting in and telling us who can get married. Separation of church and state. Or these fuckers can start paying there fair share in taxes.

[More Than A Feeling]

36. Your objection gets hung up on the term "marriage"

under what is being said here, everyone who wanted to make a life commitment to their partner could do it under the auspices of government in a civil union. EVERYONE. Gay and Straight. Equal Rights. Then, those who are religious, gay and straight, could have a religious ceremony in whatever church will perform it, which would mean nothing legally. That way, those churches who don't want to perform it for certain classes of people don't have to. Their freedom of religion is preserved.

[gollygee]

47. Religious people don't own the term "marriage"

Only the state can grant a marriage license. The state is the primary owner of the word marriage. No church owns it. There is no reason why churches should get to say who can be married or not based on their particular religious views. When you look at it simply as a state licensing issue, it's obviously 100% discrimination to not allow same-sex marriages.

[More Than A Feeling]

62. Churches have a say in who they perform the ceremony for

under the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution. That ceremony is called the sacrament of marriage. The state should not be using that term for anyone, gay or straight in the interests of preserving separation of church and state. The state should drop it and start calling what they do something else. Both gays and straights could then get...whatever the new term is, civil union, whatever, and have equal rights.

[gollygee]

65. They can come up with some new name if they want one

they don't have a right to take the name away from the rest of us.

[More Than A Feeling]

72. they would probably say the same thing to us

and therein lies the fundamental intractable problem.

[KittyWampus]

88. Why? Marriage Has Traditionally ALWAYS Been Seen As A Religious

institution.

After researching this I found you have to back to very Ancient Egypt to find a Western Society that didn't seem to have Marriage as a Religious Institution.

True, in Rome some couples DID co-habitat.

But the Ideal form was to have a Religious Ceremony.

[Spazito]

96. So my marriage is less than your marriage because

my husband and I chose to marry at City Hall and not within a religious institute? I was married, the law confirms it, you were married, I am assuming within a church, and the law confirms it, the church cannot confer legality on your marriage or mine, only the law can.

[opiate69]

99. ...

"The different types of marriages listed above show that marriage is not one set, unchangeable definition. Even in male-female marriage practices, there are many variances in what is acceptable. However, the average American citizen may not have such a global awareness of marriage. This may in part be due to the Christian heritage of the majority of US citizens. This country directs the most marriage exposure to Christian church weddings. It may not occur to many people that there are other traditions of marriage in other countries that are considered equally valid. What this country considers the most natural and normal is not necessarily a universal standard. That the range of acceptable marriage practices may change in the future is not an unprecedented possibility nor is it unrealistic to expect changes. Marriage has never been an immutable and fixed standard. "

http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html

[Spazito]

110. Agreed, it changes over time, custom, societal evolution

it is no different, imo, than society accepting a woman's right to vote when, at one time, society accepted the tenet that women should not and cannot vote.

[gollygee]

104. Whose ideal? and why do you capitalize "Ideal" ?

Ancient Egypt is a pretty long time ago and contradicts your claim of "always"

[Ravy]

106. I think there is a good chance...

that if Democrats would take the position that marriage is a religious ceremony, and to steal a bit from Dr. Dean, the framing of "Who do you think ought to decide who gets gets married in your church, your pastor or Tom Delay?" is somewhat powerful.

While I was taught and truly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe gays should be civilly united if they choose to do so as a matter of fairness and perhaps even anti-discrimination laws.

As I have said in previously posts, I would also have no problem if gays got married in their own church, any church of their choosing that would do it.

It doesn't bother me if my church perhaps wouldn't accept gay couples as being married. It bothers me greatly that my state does not consider them united nor afford them the legal rights of such a union.

[OETKB]

35. What are the apples and oranges?

The struggle is between the function of government and that which belongs to society. The ceremonies and rituals of religions are designed to solidify committments and help the faithful through strong moments in their lives. It does not establish the rights and responsibilities of those who make those committments. That is the role of government. A marriage license confers rights as well as certain legal contracts. In fact these can be directly opposite to religious vows(divorce, etc.) Why? One is based on hopes(religion), the other on dealing with the practical interactions of human beings(government). No one is disturbing anyone's belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it is not going to work as a law.

[BornLeft]

37. I really don't give a flying

rats ass what you call it. In the very first place it's none of my gd business. No article in the Constitution saying you should or shouldn't be married/divorced/union-ed or whatever. What the freak gives us dolts the right to even think we know what's best in peoples decisions? I say maybe let's go the opposite route and just get the govt and the churches out of it. Leave it up to the individuals.

[Az]

38. Flame retardant: I agree(but also disagree)

The entire argument is muddied by the government essentially stepping in what is essentially a religious/social issue. The government cannot determine what is sacred or what is not. It should not be part of the institution of marriage.

The governments roll should merely be that of providing proof of civil unions. This fulfills a legal recognition of commitment between two individuals. Be they the opposite sex or the same. The government should simply be in the business of providing legal recognition of commitment.

An individuals church or social structure should be the arbiter of whether they can be married. Just as a Catholic cannot get married to a non Catholic in a Catholic church the criteria is dependent on their particular religion. Government cannot step in and tell them they have to perform the ceremony.

There are many religious groups that support same sex marriage. If you do not happen to belong to one and wish them to marry you then perhaps the problem isn't political. Perhaps it is time to seek out a group that is more in line with your particular identity. At the very least for the purposes of acknowledging your commitment.

I disagree with your OP in that I believe marriage is for any two people that love each other no matter their gender. But I agree that government should step back a bit from this matter.

Government for legal recognition of civil unions.

Churches and other institutions for ceremonies of marriage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. What's marriage got to do with farms?

I was born in a coastal state where PEOPLE actually live and they've voted against equal rights for gay people too.

I don't care whether you were born, hatched, raised in a convent or shoved in the glove box when you were nine...what's the big deal with ALLOWING us "lesser folks" to have the same things as you, call it the same things as you, enjoy the RECOGNITION THAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP gets no matter how many times you have honored the sanctity of marriage?

That's the problem with you straight folks and your hang ups. You're allowed to violate the sanctity of your supposed covenant as much as you want and then you have the nerve to tell me?

[gollygee]

45. I wonder where the word "husbandry" comes from

Just an aside - your post made me think of that.

[matcom]

46. ROCK ON SISTER!!!

:popcorn: :bounce:

now it IS late enough to start on that :beer:

:loveya: Teena!

:yourock:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. Go for it...I am for you living your life as you see fit

I am for the separation of church and beer :D

[Andy_Stephenson]

50. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

:applause:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. ANDY!

Sorry I was slow to get to that thread...I will be contributing to your well being via snail mail...I wish you the best.

See..that's the thing. Us gay folks can live like everybody...pay bills like everybody, suffer like everybody and have our health and livelihood be threatened like everybody...what's the fucking hold up with marriage?

[Andy_Stephenson]

63. Ummm errrr uh

I dunno. Termite and I have been together 18 years. I wanna tie the knot and stop livin in sin. :rofl: Notice the :sarcasm:

Andy

[KittyWampus]

90. Get The Chip Off Your Shoulder. If Some Church Wants To "Marry" You

and that's what you want then fine, knock yourselves out.

But the State has NO business giving ANYONE, straight, gay, black, white a "Marriage License".

A Civil Union License is FINE. It has no historical connotation related to Religion... which the word and concept of Marriage absolutely does.

If you'd stop your kneejerk reaction, you'd admit that there IS a difference between a Religion and the State providing for the joining of two households.

One is Ceremonial and one is LEGAL.

The two ARE different and should be legally, linguistically, conceptually and culturally seperated.

1. People have a right to belong to a Religion which denies same sex couples from cohabitating.

2. People have a right to belong to a Religion which welcomes same sex couples to cohabitate.

3. EVERYONE should have the right for the State to legally recognize the joining of their household with that of ANY other person reagardless of sex,color, creed.

[gollygee]

107. The state has no business doing it?

you'd better tell the state, as the state has been doing it for the entire history of the US. But keep re-writing history to meet your view of things.

Can you blame her for having a chip on her shoulder? You and I have rights she can't have. How could she not have a chip on her shoulder?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. I have a response to "get the chip off your shoulder" but it would get

removed.

I am sick and tired of the strawman that one is civil and one is religious.

The only thing you are correct about is the state has NO BUSINESS discriminating against anyone and using CULTURE, RELIGION or any other excuse to justify bigotry is just that..an excuse to justify bigotry.

Your manner of expressing it is simply the enlightened, "liberal" justification for bigotry.

[Darranar]

133. But I don't think the original poster is proposing that at all...

He or she is proposing that EVERYONE have civil unions.

As I understand it, under this proposal if someone wants to marry they can have whatever ceremony they want and marry whomever they want. The government takes no part, except in granting the civil union - and that is granted to whoever wants it (within parameters, of course, but parameters having nothing to do with whether it's a gay or straight marriage). No one is married legally - just civil unioned legally.

So there's no discrimination.

[Ravy]

113. Why not try reading my post?

I do want gay couples to have EXACTLY the same rights as straight couples, and all the rights that currently married couples enjoy. And, to call it the same thing to boot.

I am offering a way to get it done.

[gollygee]

49. Why are you even using the right-wing talking point "sanctity of marriage"

anyway?

Marriage is not *sacred* - it is a state licensing issue.

[KittyWampus]

91. Marriage Is Absolutely Historically A Religious Institution.

In fact, it's only fairly recently that Church and State were seperated.

[gollygee]

112. The church and state ARE separated

and marriage was simply an institution. The church WAS the state in some instances in history. That doesn't mean marriage was a religious event more than a political event. In this country, church and state are separate, and marraige is not religious.

[Ravy]

119. Because that is a way to beat them.

Most people believe that an oath sworn before God has some sanctity, and Republicans capitalize on that.

We have to separate the legal and religious aspects of marriage to beat them on this issue.

[gollygee]

120. I didn't swear any oath before any god when I got married

and guess what? I'm still married!

The religious aspect of marriage can be separated as much as people want it to. But marriage in this country is still primarily a legal contract. The rights associated with marriage come from the state, not from any church. I don't believe that should change.

[Mandate My Ass]

51. Let's throw the gays overboard!

Why give them any rights at all since they obviously make so many corn-fed, semi-religious, straight "Americans" feel uncomfortable? Hell, why refer to them citizens, or even people, since their sexual orientation renders them seperate and unequal.

[mtnsnake]

57. Speaking of going overboard n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

60. There is nothing patriotic *or* Christlike

about denying others the rights one enjoys because a supposed majority feel that that's the way it should be.

The last time I read the Constitution, it didn't refer to religious middle America as being the arbiter of who gets which rights in this country and who doesn't.

Saying that "I believe a marriage should be a man and a woman and lots of other truly American church-going people agree with me" is not only a logical fallacy, it's also rank hypocrisy.

[ruggerson]

66. It's a tautology

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's intellectually indefensible and lazy.

[KittyWampus]

Lazy Is Not Recognizing The Difference Between Ceremony/Ritual And

Legal contracts.

Lazy is not recognizing that Seperation of Church & State is fairly recent developement.

Lazy is not looking into the historical role of Religion in performing Marriages.

Lazy is relying on kneejerk reactions to an opening post rather than trying to understand the actual intent.

[KittyWampus]

94. Way To Miss The Point Entirely. Thanks For Illustrating Preconcieved

notions and bias and how it prevents people from grasping relatively simple concepts.

[ruggerson]

59. Do you believe that men OWN women?

Because if you want to preserve the tradition of marriage, that's what marriage was originally about. Trading chattel.

I just don't buy this religious view of marriage as a non-static institution. *Religious* marriage has changed enormously over the centuries.

I actually have no problem with your concept. Except that it's completely implausible. The United States is about as ready to chuck civil marriage as it is to annex Canada and Mexico.

I don't mind the push for civil unions as an interim step. As long as we acknowledge that what we are all after is ultimately full equality. Not separate but equal equality, but the real thing. And that means, currently, we have to remain committed to the concept of civil marriage for all couples who wish to participate.

Since this is about civil marriage, this is an issue of economic justice. Taxpayers are currently not being treated equally by the government. One set of taxpayers is being discriminated against. I don't think that's a loser in the electoral process as long as we learn to frame it properly.

[ruggerson]

64. And furthermore

Polling consistently shows that younger people (18-33) support same sex marriage. What this indicates is that a generation that grew up with far less stigma attached to homosexuality than previous generations is not brainwashed to think of gays and lesbians as somehow "lesser than." This young generation grew up with gays as friends, they grew up with their best friend being from a same sex household. They do not hold the superstititous bigotries of previous generations, largely because they have experienced the reality of gay and lesbian people firsthand.

It also means, that like every other civil rights movement, the march to the future is about EXPANDING rights and freedom, not reducing them, changing them or restricting them. From the slaves in Egypt, to the slaves in this country, to the Jews and gypsies in 20th century Europe, the march to liberty has been only in one direction, albeit in fits and starts.

The history of civilization is all about the slow, inexorable expansion of freedom and the slow and inexorable recognition of the dignity of all human beings.

You are fighting against the history of mankind. The next wave of freedom will include gays and lesbians. It's all over but the shouting.

[foreigncorrespondent]

67. And I believe in...

...the separation of church and state. So religions should not be getting involved in state matters, just because they misunderstood the bible.

[bush_is_wacko]

68. I have been married for 20 years

I DO support the sanctity of marriage! I support it by being a faithful and loving wife to my husband.

WE happen to be friends of a few other couples that ALSO support the sanctity of marriage. They TOO are faithful and loving spouses. They TOO raise children together and live life together.

Marriage is about being a WITNESS to another persons life, till death do you part. It is extremely hard for me to see how this whole man/woman thing "respects the sanctity" of that endeavor! Children and "spouses" of gay "marriages" are at FAR more risk of losing it all when one of them passes away or gets an illness. When one of the spouses loses a job, THAT spouse is without health insurance. There is no reason for making each spouse in a commited relationship carry their own insurance other than to DISCRIMINATE against them. I get ALL of the family benefits through my husband. There have been times when my job has carried the etirety of health benefits. I have access to EVERYTHING that is in my husbands name. My children will receive death benefits through the government IF anything ever happens to him. This is simply NOT the case for same sex spouses and children. "Marriage" may NOT be the answer, but we need to come up with SOME RECOGNIZABLE form of union that will allow the loving relationship that these people have built to continue on for the sake of their children or spouses.

I was raised Catholic but I am sorry, I have ABSOLUTELY no sympathy for people who claim HETEROSEXUAL relationships should take precedent over HOMOSEXUAL ones. For the sake of spouses and children everywhere the financial aspect of a long term committed couple should NOT be any different!

[opiate69]

70. An anthropologic view of marriage..

I daresay, some religious types would do well to expand their egocentric worldview a bit...

Gay Marriage and Anthropology

Linda S Stone
Washington State U

Politicians and the public in the US today are raising a question once pursued by anthropologists in the 1950s, namely, what should we mean by marriage? The politically charged issue concerns whether or not a constitutional definition of marriage can exclude same-sex couples. With over a century of experience in the study of kinship and marriage worldwide, anthropology can offer perspectives on this debate that may be of interest to our students or the general public.

Can Marriage Be Defined?
Many politicians claim that those advocating gay and lesbian marriage are trying to redefine marriage. But what anthropologists have learned is that from a global, cross-cultural perspective, “marriage” is in the first place extremely difficult, some would say impossible, to define. One anthropologist, Edmund Leach tried to define marriage in his 1955 article “Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage” published in MAN. Leach quickly gave up this task, concluding that no definition could cover all the varied institutions that anthropologists regularly consider as marriage. Rejecting Leach’s conclusion, Kathleen Gough attempted to define marriage cross-culturally in 1959 as an institution conferring full “birth status rights” to children (The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 89:23-34). Gough’s definition of marriage was convoluted—notable, in her own words, for its “inevitably clumsy phraseology”—since it covered monogamy, polygyny, polyandry and same-sex marriage. But most important, its core feature—conferring of birth status rights on children—does not hold up cross-culturally.

much more here: http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

[fortyfeetunder]

71. Last time I checked, marriage license has no religious req't.

Obtained a marriage license from the state...and there was no religious tie to it. There was no word "G-d" or reference to religion in the marriage certificate.

Therefore, I could have married through a judge, justice of the Peace, my local priest or to the Elvis Wedding Chapel, and would have been just as married. I don't think it makes a difference how one gets married.

I don't have a problem with gays getting married. I'd rather see gays get married to protect their legal interests (children, health care, estate planning).

If we considered marriage a legal term rather than a religious term, then I think we can get down to the business of providing such privileges to gay couples.

[KittyWampus]

97. But The Word Marriage Traditionally DOES Have A Religious Connonation.

and there IS a difference between a Religious Ceremony/Ritual and Legal Contract.

We need to recognize this difference in our terminology.

[opiate69]

100. Prove it...

[gollygee]

109. No it doesn't

the word "marriage" was not created from any religious word.

[ulysses]

95. I do!

Gay marriage presents no threat to it. None whatsoever. Nada. Zilch.

[More Than A Feeling]

98. This thread definitely just got a second wind

Any predictions on how many posts it ends up having? I'll say 140 before it degenerates into flame war and gets locked.

[Bluebear]

103. "First they came for the gays........."

Realize then that in your enthusiasm to win elections that this assault on gays is just the first little experiment in the Republican agenda. Camps can also accommodate liberals, non-christians, 'abortionists', etc.

[johnaries]

105. Historically, Marriage is NOT a Religious institution.

"The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)."

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

The civil government will recognize marriages performed by clergy if the clergyperson is certified by the government, but ultimately marriage is a civil contract. That's why divorces are granted in court. Only a Civil judge can negate the contract.

Sure, a member of clergy should be able to refuse to perform a marriage, but when a judge performs a marriage it's still a marriage.

[noamnety]

129. Thank You! It's NOT an invention of religion

Marriage was originally a legal secular contract, the church became involved because messy legal situations necessitated the need for written records, and usually the priest was the only one who could read and write in a village.
http://www.derekelkins.com/samesex/history/main.htm

"Indeed in it's origins, marriage had little to do with love or religion. The oldest history of marriage dates to 2350 B.C., and it original intention was to "bind" a woman to a man. This essentially made the woman the "property" of the man, to "guarantee" that the man's heirs where biologically his. "
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/civilunions/a/MarriageFeb05.htm

Marriage and divorce in ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia: "Marriage, regarded as a legal contract, and divorce as its breakup were similarly affected by official procedures. The future husband and his father-in-law agreed on a contract and if a divorce occurred, the father-in-law was entitled to satisfaction."
http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58



Marriages originally existed outside of churches. I see no reason for them to be denied to nonchristians just because Christian churches have decided to have priests and pastors bless their ceremonies. One may as well say gays shouldn't be allowed to drink wine, because it's a sacrament. Just because a church decides to bless a custom or include it in its rituals doesn't mean the rest of the world is no longer allowed to partake in that action.

Anyone who thinks I should be denied rights because of their religion should find a better place to shove their beliefs other than down my throat, thanks.

[SoCalDem]

116. The "sanctity" of marriage belongs in the churches

the "institution" of marriage (choosing a life-partner) should be recognized by the STATE.

If people WANT the sanctity part, "Bully for Them".. they can have their union "blessed" by THEIR church/synagogue/temple/mosque/chapel/cahedral, etc.

I prefer a "pick-one" approach to the LEGAL marriage. If it's your "main squeeze", great..i'm all for it...BUT if it's your paraplegic sister with no medical benefits, why should you not be allowed to choose her?

or if you are gay and want it to be your boyfriend/girlfriend, why is it any of MY business?

or if you are a single person with an elderly parent, why not THEM??

It's a LEGAL commitment, and ANYONE of legal age should qualify as your partner..

There could be yearly affirmations. Is it any different really, than when a guy marries his girl, puts her on his medical and into every legal database...and then a few moths later , they divorce??

[gollygee]

117. That's just silly

marriage is intended to be a life-long romantic partnership. No one "marrying" an elderly parent will be intending it to be life-long. Obviously people divorce, but people go into marriage intending it to be a life commitment.

[SoCalDem]

122. There ARE single people who never "marry for romantic reasons"

THEY should have the option of the LEGAL aspects that marriage offers. That was my point.. I am not advocating "incest" here:P

The fact that people marry, should NOT bequeath "special favors" on them....denying those benefits to single people is the problem..

Offer single people the same "benefits", and the "sanctity of marriage" issues go away :)

[gollygee]

126. No they shouldn't

marriage is a romantic partnership. Straight single people have the right to form a romantic partnership. Gay people should have the same right. We don't need to allow people to marry their grandmas or cats.

[SoCalDem]

132. "Romance" & legalities are the problem.. not the solution

to each his own :hi:

The "cat-dog" thing is a RW talking point.. I never said it, don't advocate it..

I like my kitties, but I would never marry any of them..male OR female :)

[Bluebear]

125. "A lifelong romantic partnership".... like Brittney Spears :)

She can get drunk out of her skull and marry someone in vegas for a few hours until the tequila wears off, but a gay couple together for 20 years are SOL. It's very sad.

[gollygee]

130. It is very sad

gay people should be able to get drunk out of their skulls and get married for a few hours too :D

*sigh* It's stupid we even are arguing about this. I don't understand how anyone can see the difference between a commitment between people of the same sex and a commitment between people of different sexes. Maybe these folks don't *know* anyone in a long-term same-sex relationship?

[More Than A Feeling]

127. That would really make some heads spin!

That's a bold plan you are offering. On the upside, we'd get to see John Cornyn talk about box turtles again;-)

[Darranar]

128. Good argument. I agree. n/t

[Moderator]

134. I am locking this...

Flamewar.