Regardless if you agree with gay marriage.

[pissedoffprogressive]

Why is it even possible that outgoing MA governor Mitt Romney being allowed to try to take the rights of a few away to try to push his right wing agenda to become president on us? In America are we truly OK with giving rights to people and then work hard to take them away? "All men are created equal" statement I guess doesn't apply to all people. Only the straight people.
I mean really child sex offenders, abusive husbands, and abusive parents can marry many times over but 2 people of the same sex who are in love and want to have rights they were born with are not allowed to marry. You can't tell me the bible isn't sitting in our goverment because no where (including the bible) does it say that gay people should not be treated equally. If it is such a "straight persons right" then why are all of these gay men allowed to marry women? Explain that.

Needed to post. It is so frustrating to see people want to take the rights of others away.

[unblock]

1. it's amazing that people want the gov't to inspect their shorts

just so they can comingle their finances.

truly idiotic for a country that based its independence on fighting government tyrrany.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Progressives need to remember their Liberal benefactors ,lovers of liberty.

[acmejack]

3. The Government has no business telling people who can get married.

This is an area they should not be involved in. There is absolutely no justification for the Government poking their nose in people's marrying whether you have one wife or four male or female who really cares whose business is it? And finally, who does it harm?

[Llewlladdwr]

9. acmejack gets it right.

I'm still incensed that I'm unable to legally marry my brother....

[acmejack]

10. Who really cares if you do?

I don't give a shit if you marry your lawnmower.

[xchrom]

13. the lawnmower would be too much for him in the sack.

and his brother already knows he ain't all that.

[xchrom]

11. oh we got a real live one here.

:crazy: :bounce: :crazy:

[Ravy]

16. Agree and disagree.

I agree that the Govt has no business telling people who can marry.

I disagree that they have no right to legislate matters concerning unions between consenting adults. In other words, I think the government has the obligation to legislate about the civil form of "marriage", but not the religious form of marriage.

I think a lot of people confuse the two different connotations of the term "marriage".

On the civil side, marriage certificates and health requirements are necessary to grant and preserve legal rights for spouses.

I think it is a shame that the government cannot use the term "civil union" for the legal contract. The state should not be involved at all in the religious aspects of marriage. The church should not be involved at all in the civil aspects of marriage.

The confusion of terms (often purposeful) is why most Americans support civil unions when asked, but oppose "gay marriage" when voting.

I am not proposing something "less" for gays who want to unite. All couples would need to get a civil union license to be what we call now "legally married". Many straight couples do not have a religious ceremony performed. Also, there are undoubtably some churches that would religiously marry gay couples.

Using more descriptive terms in the debate would lead to a quicker, and I think a good solution to the current inequity.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Why not put lots of minority rights on the ballot?

Why should Jews be allowed to marry Christians? I'm pretty sure that each of their deities (despite being the same Deity) is dead set against such abominations, and there is a long history of such hideous unions being banned. Let's put an amendment banning inter-religious marriages up for a vote too. In fact, let's vote on banning Muslims from marrying at all. After all religion is a choice, and if these people want to get married they can choose to be Christians or Jews.

Mittens is an abomination. Luckily he is a lame duck abomination and his grand standing on god hates fags, while playing well to the fundaloon base he is now wooing for his soon-to-be-failed presidential run, it is not playing well in his carpet-bagged home state. He should go back to Utah and settle down with his two other wives and forget about it.

[pissedoffprogressive]

5. Even better - Put straight white men's rights on the ballots

[marmar]

6. Teehee. There would be a massive rebellion the likes of which we've never seen.

:yoiks:

[pissedoffprogressive]

7. Ban their Viagra - And watch out for the riots! Whew

}(

[dddem]

8. If it's any consolation,

Our newly elected Governor - Deval Patrick (yay!) - doesn't believe it should be on the ballot. Constitutional rights should not be determined by popular vote. His analogy was that if abolishing slavery had been put to a popular vote, it might not have happened. And if desegragation had been put to a popular vote here in the 70's, it also would not have taken place.
And if it makes you feel any better about the people in Massachusetts, I spent some time postcarding for MassEquality, and thoe only person who refused to sign one of my cards refused because he wants the people to vote, and then all the naysayers would be proven wrong once and for all.I must admit, even though it was nice to get the positive response, I worry that, voter turnout being what it is, not enough people(who aren't bothered by gay marriage)care enough about this issue to come out to vote.
All we can do is hope that the next generation feels about Gay Marriage the way we now feel about interracial unions, or our parents felt about interfaith unions - eventually we'll all figure out that in the end, it doesn't matter who you love, it matters that you love.
Peace.

[pissedoffprogressive]

14. I live in Mass. I have been in a relationship for 20 years

I agree with you. If it doesn't impact them they probably don' really care. I found a site www.knowthyneighbor.org and surprising how many people signed a petition to rid MA of gay marriage. I hope there is a world at some point who can just let people be.

Peace

[dddem]

17. I've seen that list

I know for a fact it's not accurate. I saw my brother's tenant's name and was very surprised - she didn't seem the type to object. After discussing it with my s-i-l, I found out that her tenant thought she was signing the petition to buy wine at the grocery store.
What I also found out was that only 35% of Americans are against civil rights for all, they are just more vocal than the rest of us. I am in the other 65%, which is why I started opening my mouth. Now everybody knows me around town because I have the "straight but not narrow" bumper sticker on my red station wagon. Right next to my "I'm proud of my student of the month" sticker. The 65% need to start making it clear who we are and where we stand. I want everyone who sees my car to know that suburban moms support equal rights for all citizens. I've had nothing but positive feedback, if it means anything to you.
I honestly don't understand what the objection is. Allowing someone what seems to me a basic right, does nothing to diminish me or what's mine. And people who try to offer the compromise of a civil union are not getting the whole picture. Being married is not just about being in love and committing yourself to another person, and it's not just about the financial and security benefits, such as tax breaks, pensions, property rights, etc. There is (whether you want to acknowledge it or not) a social status to being married. It makes you more "legitimate", if you will, in the eyes of society. You can argue that it shouldn't matter, but, in fact, it does.
I'm not a real smart person, but that just seems like common sense to me. And it seems to me that people in our society who want to be in committed, monogamous relationships should be celebrated and encouraged, because it speaks well for us all.
I promise, I will keep opening my big mouth, and driving my red wagon with my 'gay bumper stickers' and doing what I can to further the cause, because it's good for all of us.
Peace.

[Mr_Spock]

12. Oven Mitt (Willard) is a friggin' jackass

I can't believe (as you can't) than any human being would stoop to such a level to try to win the votes of hateful bigots in an election that is nearly four years away. I just hope that the court tells him to go take a flying hike "with prejudice". He really needs to be slapped down for this violently hateful stunt. I am really starting to hate this jerk.

[Orsino]

15. Re-frame.

When did Mitt become pro-divorce?

[gollygee]

18. I don't get this either

My sister told me yesterday that she doesn't "believe in" homosexuality. What does that mean? It isn't like the tooth fairy. She said it means that she thinks it's a choice. BUT she voted against the anti-same-sex marriage bill a couple of years ago when it was on the ballot because she said the fact that she thinks it's a choice isn't a good enough reason to deny people rights. I guess that's something anyway. *sigh*.