Is anyone bothered that gays can marry in Vermont?

Since we're deciding tonight who should and shouldn't marry and since we're sticking our noses into people's private marital lives where we don't belong, I just thought I'd ask.

Go for it.

nt

and it wouldn't bother me if there was. Equal rights. Enough said.

that that's how people feel. After reading the Carville-Matalin thread, I thought for sure that we were turning into Freak Republic!

NO,it doesn't bother me that gays can marry, why should it matter to anyone that loves life and people?

that loves life and people", exactly my point. Which is why I was so upset at many of the responses in that thread.

for the thread?

something about were we bothered that they were married? I would have answered no to that one too. Sheesh...live and let live. If it's not dangerous to anyone else, who care what others are doing? The 'noses in everybody else's business group', need to get a life!

But perhaps it escalated into some flaming if people took it too seriously.

unless something changed that I am not aware of. Vermont has civil unions if that is what you mean.

zzzzzz. Who cares?

ain`t really my business what anyone does in their personal life.

Vermont is like California, civil unions. Jersey too? I think.

has domestic partnerships.

:shrug:

It bothers and angers me, too. And that's why I'm so bothered by the Carville-Matalin thread where people actually think they have the right to tell the respective parties who they shouldn't or shouldn't marry and that they have the right to stick their noses into that marriage where it doesn't belong.

I'm for gays having equal access to marriage, but it's pretty low on my scale of priorities at this point. But no, Vermont's civil unions don't bother me at all.

The label should say:

"While you are eating your pancakes or waffles, there are gay couples living the "gay lifestyle" and with recognized civil union rights at this moment in Vermont, the origin of this syrup, and enjoying themselves. Perhaps you are one of those people. Make sure to enjoy your meal and certainly try this syrup again."

Hey, if selling out to the right wing can make me some fast cash, I'll gladly do it! :silly:

It was legalized months ago here in Nova Scotia, but after a brief initial flurry of interest, it's really just sort of disappeared from the news. I have no idea how many gays are getting married here; I'd expected a number of same-sex couples I know to tie the knot, but it really just hasn't happened.

:shrug:

This may a reflection of the general decline in importance of formal marriage within society--a hell of a lot of committed relationships just don't have formal marriage in the equation. And I think you're right--it's no one's business but theirs.

:hi:

exactly, thanks for making my point!

Care to point us in the direction of the "nose-sticking" in question?

asking if anyone was bothered that James Carville was married to Mary Matalin. Some of the responses are truly unbelievable, not to mention eye-opening. Sorry, I don't yet know how to post links.

to see two gay friends get married this summer, not in the least.

But if I was married, we'd have to divorce, our union is no longer sacred, because we can't exclude those homosexuals anymore (/sarcasm
off)

I have never, ever understood how allowing gay marriage could somehow "destroy" heterosexual marriage. Of course, that's the same logic used against the legalization of interracial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same, SIGH.

It doesn't bother me at all where or with whom they marry.

I get a kick out of the "marriage protection Amendment". What is it designed to do? Protect the skyrocketing divorce rate among hetros? Hah.

I think they're afraid gays will show 'em up if they're allowed to marry.

plain and simple.
Gay marriages and polyamorous marriages ought to be legal and welcomed. Let adults decide for themselves how they want to live, as long as the relationships are between consenting adults.

for about 3-5 years. And then.....

approval by strangers.

Good for Vermont. Guess those Yankees figured it was nobody else's business. Imagine that.

anyone else's marriage, or relationship, be "subject to approval by strangers?" Which is why I was so surprised at far too many of the responses to the Carville-Matalin marriage thread. As if it's any of our damn business.

is a Holy Union Between One Man and One Penguin.

Anything else is blasphemy. Says right here in My Bible.

Guess that explains your username, then! :evilgrin:

Oh, wait. No, it isn't. That was just a LIE repeated for years by a bunch of fascist nutjobs.

I'd like to apologize in advance if my own marriage is in any way inconveniencing anyone here. Sorry. Didn't mean to get het all over you.

On the other hand there was no correlation with gays getting married.

that Vermont is one of the only places they can. Should be nationwide.

but that is more due to their repressed sex lives, sancity of marriage is just an excuese...

uh, I mean, Locking

about it.



















Just kidding.

...I (a heterosexual woman) have experienced an overpowering urge to leave my husband, destroy my marriage and run off to Bora Bora with my neighbor Sheila.

See!!! Stuff like this does destroy the institution of marriage!!!

End the denial, people! The evangelicals were right all along!

Gay marriage will systematically destroy every heterosexual marriage in this country and leave the United States in total ruin.

Dogs and cats, living together!! Mass hysteria!!

really believe that their spouses' same-sex friends are a danger to them. I have a tiny little bit of experience with that mindset. They fear that same sex couples know how to satisfy each other better. I have no doubt they are right, either, but it never caused me to change my sexual orientation. Deep feelings of personal inadequacy fuel a lot of this hysteria over same sex couples and marriages.

I mean if gay people got married... something bad would surely happen to my marriage, though I have never been sure what. My husband would become a slob or it would affect our sex life because gay people have made a commitment.

And you know what Jesus says about gays. Well nothing, he doesn't mention them.

Well I forget why I am supposed to be bothered, why we need a constitutional amendment to stop them.

So no, I guess I would not mind if they could marry anywhere.

The whole institution is wrecked now. Wrecked, I say!

...and almost nowhere else...:grr:

...run over by steamrollers.

I think, libhistorian, that this is why many find their strange, seemingly unholy union such an irresistible target for satire, myself included.
BUT... I wouldn't legislate against 'em; if they can make it work (though I have no idea how), and it doesn't hurt others, what's the problem?
Kinda like gay marriage (or civil unions, or whatever you wanna call 'em)...
I haven't been to the thread you speak of; but could it be possible that they were all just goofin' on C & M?
I could never marry a woman who thought Reagan and Bush 1 were decent and acceptable presidents and people... and ANYONE who could continue to support this new demonspawn?
Such people don't DESERVE to be laid, EVER, that's what I think...
Poor lil' President Pinhead; why's everybody always pickin' on him?



Listen, anyone wanna get drunk for the next 3 1/2 years or so with me? C'mon over to
http://www.presidentevilonline.com
I've got some beer and crackers, a bit of the old "carnubial accoutrements and fineries" and a trained pig who can play the pennywhistle, name o' Skip... we could spend a fine and pleasant time together, and it's completely pants-optional!...so come one, come all!
Watch Dick Cheney's Head Exploding!
http://www.presidentevilonline.com/sn_explosion.html
See Michael Jackson Decaying Before Your Very Eyes!
http://www.presidentevilonline.com/sn_jacko.html
Let Donald Rumsfeld Pummel You Into Unconsciousness With His Bare Hands!
http://www.presidentevilonline.com/rummy.html
Hope to see ya all there!
D
"A man who would forsake liberty for security is a total idiot jerkweed doofus, that's for sure." --Benjamin Frankin

I have heard her and Carville, in the past say that gay rights is the one issue that they agree on.
The fact that she has openly voiced dissent with the GOP's position on gay rights (and therefore risking her job as a Republican spokesperson) has always indicated to me that she is not as bad as she generally seems on television.

Here is a link to an interview in which she talks abouts her support for gay rights:



http://content.gay.com/channels/news/action_center/mixner_matalin.html

"Mary Matalin, without a doubt, is one of the strongest voices within the Republican Party advocating equal rights for lesbians and gay men. She was the darling of gay conservatives at the Republican Party's national convention in Philadelphia last July--and that was after a string of appearances for Log Cabin clubs across the country."

I stand corrected, Aaron... and happily, cuz the info you so helpfully provide is illustrative of the mysterious and unseen (but obviously existent) aspects of the special relationship between these two...
I like Carville ok a lot at face value; Matalin I've always found somewhat difficult to warm to (lol!)... lets face it, who hasn't wasted immense amounts of time just dumbstruck and wondering with jaw aslack at how two so opposed in their basic view of the world could ever mate, how that could possibly last...
Yet it does, and it's their private business...
Sometimes I think it's not even a real marriage but a simple publicity stunt that keeps both balanced happily at the tip of the pointy collective American psyche... other times I allow for the possibiliy that one or another of them is perhaps secretly working for the other side...
But what the hell do I know about their lives? Nothing... and life is full of surprises...
Mostly accepting on faith that they are a genuine couple, I find this odd juxstaposition by turns both charming and extremely annoying (it's mostly her--he's a VERY cool and kooky customer, if you ask me; just don't know how he puts up with her),,, and it all depends on my own temperament at the time.
With some, we joke because we love... I think that's the case with a lot of us.
Cuz' wouldn't it be nice to think that not EVERYONE on network news these days is actually a shining scaly reptile-thing wearing a clever human skin suit?
I can't help but hope, can't help playing the foolish optimist...

Michael Jackson: Guilty?
Or innocent by reason
of shrieking insanity?



More at
http://www.presidentevilonline.com

"...and the snake replied, "Fool! You knew I was a snake when you elected me!" --old Finnish folk tale

I apologize for speaking foolishly, btw... a clown doesn't really have to hold to the same standard, but it would appear I was way off the mark on that one...
Or am I?
I often find it difficult to take seriously the commitment to social justice of a rightwing pundit who commonly reveals a dark and icy heart in so many other matters of shared community, then turns around to champion one or two worthy and decently populist causes; I have to wonder if they're not doing it simply in order to appear nicer and more well-intended than they actually are deep down inside, thus providing added illusion of weight to their other, often much more pernicious and damaging arguments and ideas...
Al Capone made a big show of giving to charities and orphanages, for example... and we all know what a sweet, big-hearted, generous, kind, caring, sensitive individual he was... but it served him well in the court of public opinion for many, many years...
I guess it comes down to this: For me, if you're any sort of cheerleader for the Grand Old Mighty Righty Mostly Whitey Blockhead Bonehead Tree-Hating Oil-Guzzling Environment-Pimping Mega-Monster Party at this point in the game, EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS SUSPECT. You're reality is different than mine, and I don't trust you.
Not you, of course... them.
I doubt not just their words, but their basic humanity.
So... I hope you're right on that, I hope she really is ok in some ways... but until I see further proof, as a matter of principal I must stand by my original baseless accusations (ha!)...
I rest my face.

couples who have not only made it work, but have been as much in love as same-minded couples. We don't really know what Matalin is like beyond her public persona and we don't know the inner workings of their marriage. It's none of our business, anyway, NO ONE ELSE'S relationships are our business unless they're directly wrecking our own marriages or relationships (affairs, etc.). That is what bothered me so much about the way people were talking in that thread, because they all sounded so much like freepers it was incredible.

Indeed, we've all known such people, I'm sure these are the structural dynamics of half the households in America; but rarely are both partners in the business of championing extremely opposing political viewpoints in public forums. Carville and Matalin are a unique political odd couple in this regard; I can think of no other such offhand...
I did state emphatically that their personal lives are none of my business, and that my ignorance of their actual lives lived together is as vast the the sky... I just wanted to assure you, we agree totally on that...
On the other hand, IF one or the other of my wildly speculative suspicions are indeed correct, it would obviously be everyone's business from the standpoint that such a union would be another example of covert media manipulation, less a marriage than a partnered creation of a cultural fiction which is served up to everyone as fact; and no one really knows what the full impact of these sorts of reality distortions can be on the collective American psyche (though the potential seems limitless)...
MY concern is that, again, the perceptions that arise from such distortions give us all a further distorted view of Republicans and conservatives in general, in which we begin to regard them as actual human adversaries rather than the cold-blooded reptilian THINGS we all first met on the childhood playground, and that society is constantly telling us we have to get along with and tolerate no matter how ATROCIOUS their behavior gets...
Think about it. This thread has gotten so many responses from people who, it would appear, initially thought you were saying they SHOULD be concerned about gay marriage, if I'm reading 'em right (to your credit, though, I would guess not everyone's reading the actual initial post through)...
Now, conservatives believe that making war should be tolerated and encouraged and even lauded as a great virtue... but they can't get behind the idea of two people loving one another, not if it doesn't fit into the precise category and definition of sex as THEY know it... though it's none of their business, AT ALL, the very idea of sexual diversity frightens them, and they often ACT on that fear, sometimes violently, to repress this behavior in others...
In other words, they don't like certain FACTS of life, and so they try to wipe out free expression of those realities they find most disturbing...
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that variant forms of sexual expression that do not harm others should be tolerated, and that the reason is self-evident in that no one is being harmed.. and they also believe that people who FORCE others to shoot wildly into crowds of other people cuz a guy with a serious speech impediment in the WH had a sudden, irresistible craving for human flesh, that THIS sort of behaviour should NOT be tolerated AT ALL, not ONE more time, not one more victim, JUST FUCKIN' STOP THAT, YOU"RE KILLING PEOPLE!
THEY (conservatives) want to stop people from kissing each other. WE want to stop people from KILLING each other. How much simpler can things be?
HUGE difference there, if you ask me. And not really one of those things you just say, well, reasonable people can disagree...
Which is why I must always reserve a bit suspicion of C & M and the extremely unlikely union they embody.
At best, they are two very quirky and funny public figures, and they know the score on fame and fortune... if they get a little razzing cuz of it, they can handle it, they're probably laughing all the way to the bank... and I still say that said razzing is mostly outta a sense of good-natured fun, from actually very warm and well-meaning and charmingly playful people like me.
And if they don't see it that way?... then fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
HA!
D

The issue is whether or not the government chooses to respect their human rights by recognizing the union.

They already had real maple syrup. Now, this.

:hi:

or anywhere else in the US. That's what bothers me.

What doesn't bother me is that Vermont has taken a step forward and grants all legal rights that opposite sex couples have.

But the word "marriage" is still reserved only for different sex couples in VT...but that's still a hell of a lot better than the rest of the country.

Gay people marrying in Vermont is the biggest problem humankind faces today. If only they would stop, life would be idyllic.

:crazy:

Splendidly said! You sum it up so well...
Was that you, or a quote from the bibble? (yuk yuk!)
When oh when will we liberals start seeing sense?
D
ps: I KNOW you were joking too!... just loved that wording!


NEXT WEEK'S NEWS PREVIEW:

:hi:

You pose: "Is anyone bothered that gays can marry in Vermont?"

I was not aware that marriage was legal. I thought Vermont allowed civil unions. Perhaps I'm wrong.

In any event, come to Massachusetts, we do not discriminate on the basis of gender or orientation.

legal rights are more palatable to people than "marriage".

oh and it is destroying my non-existant marriage :eyes:
/sarcasm

come on people, gays will eventually have equal right but you can bet your left ass cheek it won't be because of Republicans. Let's take back congress in 2006, and then our country.

interested. You just walk across the state line with a drivers license and a birth certificate, find a judge, and, voila, you hitched. It's cool and the way it should be. Very 'libertarian', if I may say so.

And I thought it was just because my wife turned into a controlling bitch. Obviously Vermont has destroyed the sanctity of my marriage.

You think I could sue them? I could use the cash to pay my lawyer...

:evilgrin:

YES! Damnit! This is certainly going to hurt my heterosexual marriage. I have no earthly idea how, but Jerry Falwell says so, so it must be true. :shrug:

instantly drafted.

The world would be a better place if we could thin out the American redneck.

In case you haven't quite figured it out yet or read my other posts on this thread, I was being totally sarcastic. It was a way for me to express my disgust at what people were posting on the "Does it bother you that Carville and Matalin are married" thread, where people thought they had the right to determine for others who they should and shouldn't marry.

and generated many a humerous replys

I'd be there in a heartbeat if i could make it through a winter.
That state has been blessed with Howard Dean's Midas touch.

Salute to all Vermontonians for blazing the trail to treating all people equally.

:toast:

Bothers us that the other states and so many Americans are such uptight prissy little backwoods idiots.

streets late at night and gang rape straights?

Why just there? Why not everywhere?

That really bothers me.

It doesn't bother me in the least if Vermonters decide that same sex couples could marry. It neither damages my marriage nor does it cause me any grief. I truly hope that you do.

I said to my husband a few weeks ago when the "Postcards from Buster" brouhaha was occurring that I was really glad our two year old daughter would be growing up with her mom and dad having friends who were straight and living together, straight and not living with/seeing/dating anyone, straight and married, gay and living together, gay and not living with/seeing/dating anyone and gay and married (two of my lesbian friends were married in Massachusetts)and that we would not have to depend on the whims of the American entertainment business for her to learn that love comes in all shapes, sizes, colors and genders. Would that all children in the US had such an opportunity.

I am fine with it. Thier business, not mine.

:shrug:

absolutely nothing I hope. It was just a comment.

;)

It's none of my damn business and it's not the business of the Christian right or the friggin' government either. :grr:

Besides, they'll get divorced within so many years anyway. Over half our country's population does.

I prefer free love anyway. Oh, and free clinics too. :evilgrin: (that's actually being half-sarky, I'd prefer herpes over jealousy any day. }( )

of gay people in recent months. It is nauseating. Using the church to do it makes it, if possible, worse. This is such a perversion of the Christianity that supposedly guides our nation. And it is a complete perversion of the tolerance that supposedly guided the framers of the Constitution - there has GOT to be a way to fight these bigots.

I'm bothered that I didn't get an invitation to any of the receptions. I LOVE wedding receptions! Other than that, it's cool.

;)

heard anyone complain or say that it is effecting their lives.
Bush wouldn't be happy in this state.

Ok in my book!

If you that worried about "same-sex" couples,then you:

1.) Have no relationship

2.) If you did have one, you have problems ("inadequate performance," etc...)

3.) You have no life

The list could go on. So, before complaining about the institution of marriage, perhaps we should worry about our own problems first. :D

How can gays marrying one another bother me, or harm me in anyway whatsoever!?! People whom believe this is more important than our country heading down the fast sliding reckless debt spending, with no end in site while 99 percent of us (all in this together) are on the verge of disastrous wreckage need their heads examined!

Phobics of Gays mirror people that have their own underlining problems.

Maybe other states will follow in Vermont's footsteps.

I do take exception to the statements here that people's private relationship or marriage is nobody else's business. There are exceptions, like domestic abuse. But that's a whole different ball of wax. . .

:)