My 2nd anniversary and thoughts on gay marriage

Yesterday was my second anniversary (no, I'm not fishing for congratulations). It's my second marriage - the first was to a nutcase, and it dragged on way too long. I'm much happier now. We're heterosexuals (man and woman).

Anyway, it just was on my mind because it was yesterday, and today I read the thing about John McCain talking about how gay marriage would "impinge upon the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" or whatever he said.

And so I'm thinking, what if there was a gay couple down the street that got married? Is that going to harm my marriage? Am I and my wife going to suddenly be in danger because a gay couple down the street got married? I don't think so. Someone explain to me how that would work. You can't, of course. But I'd like John McCain to explain it to me.

I'm not so sure he can.

affect theirs.

and I know damned few hetero marriages that have lasted that long. Far from destabilizing hetero marriage, perhaps people like my cousin could be prevailed upon to give good advice on how to stabilize it.

I know I hated being put into the position of having my ass and my job on the line when I sneaked life partners into the ICU after I'd sent a hostile family home to get some rest.

The time has come for change. It can't happen fast enough.

Congratulations on your first two years.

here, my husband is going to come home tomorrow and say "Honey, this is what I have been waiting for. I can now be openly gay and our marriage is over."

That 'gay marriage threatens hetero marriage' thing is absolutely ridiculous.

They're married, but in the closet. It's almost as if gay marriage was an option then they'd be in a gay marriage. But it's not, so they're in a hetero marriage.

Maybe that's what they mean by it threatening "traditional" marriage. That'd be a warped arguement. It's like saying "not having gay marriage forces you to marry a person of the opposite sex", which is utter bullshit, and means nothing (witness Larry Craig and countless others).

It appeals to their constituents "moral outrage" and helps whip them into a frenzy. It's been proven again and again that the family values spouted by the republicans is a complete and utter sham- it's sole purpose was and is to lock up the Christian right / fundamentalist votes. The republicans are no more moral than any other political affiliation- perhaps less so, given recent events.

Personally, as a gay man, I don't technically support gay "marriage." I was married for 15 years before coming out and I, for one, say let the moral majority have that outdated institution- Let's strike out and come up with something better! I'm willing to let them have their word, as long as a "civil union" or whatever term presented would afford the same rights.

The legal term would be "civil union" and than if the parties wish to marry it could be done in the church of their choice. Or by anyone, anywhere, but it would not have a legal meaning, just a personal one.
If a church wants to make decisions on who they will allow to be "married" in the building, fine.

... isn't considered some sort of ersatz relationship, a second-class citizen compared to "marriage."
I'm straight and unmarried so far, but I'm also an atheist, so from a practical standpoint, this would probably put me in the same "lesser" group of those who aren't "married." Personally, I'm not keen on religion, but I still like the idea of "marriage." It seems more romantic for some reason. I realize from that State's standpoint, all that matters is the legal contract, but even so...

Anyway, I think any long-term, stable relationship, straight or gay, is reason to celebrate. And with that in mind, mazeltov Tab!

:toast:

you would get the civil union document and would be legally "married" and then the personal ceremony would be what ever you wanted.

get the marriage certificate at city hall, and once during the religious ceremony. It should be a "civil union certificate" for everyone. . to be followed by any damn ceremony that is meaningful for yourself, your partner & your families.

That's what accounts for a lot of the confusion. Marriage maintains a dual meaning. When some people think "marriage", they think of a legal union, which is the preferred definition of the word and the primary reason for the institution's creation. But when other people think "marriage," they envision some sort of religious ceremony, an image that has the potential to conjure up all sorts of irrational thoughts and restrictions.

If some religions want to set certain restrictions on "marriage," such as limiting it to people with black hair or blue eyes, for example, I say go for it. It's a First Amendment issue. After all, for the most part, bigotry isn't illegal. But they can also kiss any federal funding goodbye.

have been impinged upon.

Yep, just by proximity you and your wife will be drawn into the gay lifestyle, alla a sociological black hole of no return!

:sarcasm:

and I like them better than most of my non-gay friends. Far less pretentious, much more fun.

My gay friends have a compassion for others that many straights do not. Maybe it's because they have personally suffered from discrimination and harassment, and therefore have more empathy.

Perhaps the people who are against gay marriage have a very superficial view of marriage to begin with. They see marriage as primarily a source of social prestige and are afraid that that singular attraction to the institution would disappear if it were shared with gay people, the way moving off the gold standard devalued rich people's money. Of course, when gay marriage is finally legalized throughout the country -- and the Constitution pretty much says it has to be -- the prestige factor won't disappear but perhaps heterosexual people who would've married for that reason alone would remain single.

Even if all couples are eventually offered the option of marriage (and I consider it to be the civil rights struggle of this generation), there will undoubtedly be some way in which conservative heterosexuals will seek to prove that their marriages are somehow "better"

Curiously, that concept intentionally attacks the sanctity of "ordinary" marriage by establishing a sort-of second tier.

It is the Republican strategy of framing it as an issue of special rights. Both sides buy into it all the time.

would harm straight marriage all you hear (other than nonsense) is chirping crickets.

allowing gay marriage is what led to Germany having an economic crisis, though. I never could quite figure that one out, but I had to give him bonus points for originality and effort.

and it's a logical fallacy.

Here's how it works.

Some people have an image in their minds of "marriage". It's a laundry list of attributes:

• heterosexual
  
• virginity
  
• white
  
• blushing bride
  
• white picket fence
  
• children
  

and dozens of others.

These people feel that if they get married, by some magic they will automatically receive all those attributes as a "benefit of marriage".

If anything comes along that threatens that image, they react negatively because they are afraid the attribute will somehow magically be taken away.

:kick:

If it was truly a religious arrangement "in the eyes of God", there'd be no Justice of the Peace.

I can have a girlfriend, have kids with her, live with her. The only thing marriage does, aside from a greater sense of commitment, is give us each extended legal rights in regards to each other, for medical decisions and inheritance.

I think back to when I was doing contract employee work for a company alongside salaried employees. I got better pay, and more freedom, but we did the same work. They got less pay, but more "security" - benefits, paid vacation, not as easy to fire, etc. There's nothing magical about being married except that you trade some social freedoms for some legal securities. There's no frickin' "sanctity" in it, and if the Republicans want to talk about sanctity, they better set the example. Until that happens, they should shut up.

How another couple's marriage can make my marriage less is beyond me. It makes no sense at all. The way some idiots talk they would have you believe if a gay couple marries all of the heterosexual marriages in the world would be invalid. I usually ask them who put them in charge of people getting married and why they are so insecure in their own relationship.

It will completely ruin your marriage. :sarcasm:

But seriously, I don't get it either. My gay godfather has been with his partner for 20+ years. They are both ordained ministers. In fact he preformed my marriage ceremony. We are still going strong after 10 years, so it didn't seem to impinge on our sanctity any :shrug:

rights. Arnold S. and Jerry Brown in CA have suggested that the word "marriage" be thrown out and everyone gets treated the same. I think it's not a bad idea to treat everyone the same, and maybe, just maybe the people who are against gay marriage might receive a revelation straight from God telling them that gay marriage is "ok". Take away their rights and financial privileges and suddenly it's ok. I think it will work. There is no other possible argument against it - everyone who wants to can get married in a church, but they would also have to go before a judge for the "real" marriage. Works for me.

We booked a hotel in Montreal's gay village for our 25th anniversary. Will we catch the gay and need a divorce when we get home?

with 1 kid. And I have wondered the same thing. How does it harm or impinge on my marriage that two of my lesbian friends could marry their partners of more years than my husband and I have been together? Short answer as far as I can tell is that it doesn't. I keep waiting for the GOP and/or the religious right to explain it to me in words of one syllable or less that I can understand. So far that hasn't happened.