The final word on all those inane threads regarding the same inane topic:

"marriage" is a religion-centric condition.

"Civil union" is a government-centric condition, which would grant equal rights to the parties within.

Some religious groups want the use of "marriage" to remain as it always has. Why get immature and militant about it?

There are numerous words to describe what is essentially the same partnership. A pamphlet is a reading material. A magazine is a reading material. Both are reading materials. Some prefer the name 'pamphlet' and others prefer 'magazine'.

What if that's Obama's point of view?

What has he said about civil unions?

Indeed, Elton John is gay - go look up what he has to say on the issue of "marriage" vs "civil unions"? He's an interesting character, but he clearly understands the situation -- unlike many on DU and other sites. Respect for others' beliefs by not haphazardly trampling all over them. He "gets it".

http://www.celebitchy.com/21719/elton_john_is_against_gay_marriage_says_civil_unions_are_for_same_sex_couples/



And if people don't understand after this, I'll not quit being a member of the Reality Police.

It's not even a coherent word.

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp


You don't get to have the final word.

So there goes your whole thesis.

:thumbsup:

My marriage had nothing to do with religion. I got married downtown in a county office.

Now how do they pretend marriage is inherently between man and woman without appealing to religion?

married to a married atheist.

We scream out each others names during sex :)

Sid

Also, I didn't change my last name and we don't have rings. We got married in a drive-thru chapel in Pigeon Forge.

We pretty much only did it for the legal and tax and next of kin thingies that go along with being married - actually, my husband's father still doesn't know we're married. And that's "married", not "civil-unioned". "Marriage" is just as much our word as it is the word of insane bigots, and they don't get to force their insane bigoted interpretation of it on the rest of us.

My wife and I are married.

Because he agrees with you.

Do some research. Civil unions are NOT the same as marriage and are not given the same weight or validity.

And some religious groups want women to quit their jobs and stay home and take care of the kids and be subservient to men. Where do you draw the line between what religions want and what others want?

to rationalize GLBT people not being married either.

:spray: :rofl: Just about sums it up!

that HT is bi, which would make him a GLBT, but I may be remembering it wrong.

You can't pick your family.

I feel for anyone who would marry into that situation

:rofl:

RL

Also, could you drop by the state of Florida and let the folks there know that they didn't really mean it when they recently changed their constitution to outlaw not just marriage but civil unions and anything approximating one for gay couples?

In fact, better put your walking shoes on because about 40 states have already amended their constitutions to outlaw gay civil unions as well as marriages.

you're still on the fucking bus :o

Hell of a swing, Skittles.

I say let the fundies have "marriage". That's the religious thing that has absolutely no legal standing.

To gain any legal status, a couple (gay or straight) would have to have a civil union.


The change for straight couples? None. They already have to get a marriage license if they want the marriage to be legal.

The change for gay couples? They get to be "married", but we won't call it that.

Why do so many people have issues with this?

and rather then try to change the whole system, why cant glbt folks have those same rights? and call it marriage..why is it such a nono to say MARRIAGE when it comes to GLBT couples? why not call it MARRIAGE too???

1) It's easier to change the rules than to fight "God".

2) The legal rights conveyed by today's "marriage" should have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

know:

A civil marriage with no religious ceremony conveys the full rights of marriage.

A religious marriage without the secular license conveys none.

:-)

Just give up the word. Let the religious zealots have it. Who cares if the end result is true (and identical) legal equality?

two different categories is not equal.

...just like allowing same-sex marriage is a rule change.

Two different categories ARE equal if only one conveys legal status.

Hell, find a religion that will "marry" a same-sex couple and they can be "married" too...but it won't have any legal significance.

EVERYBODY would have to get a civil union if they wanted the union to be legally recognized.

ANYBODY could get "married", but it'd have no legal significance.


Not "separate", just "equal".

Panel says New Jersey should allow gay marriage

(Reuters) New Jersey should follow two other U.S. states and allow same-sex couples to marry rather than just enter into civil unions, as the law currently permits, a state commission recommended on Wednesday.

In a report that could lead to New Jersey legalizing gay marriage, the Civil Union Review Commission said same-sex couples cannot achieve equality with heterosexual couples if their legal status is restricted to civil unions.

Full marriage is the only way to meet a state constitutional requirement for equality, said the 13-member panel of public officials, clergy, lawyers and same-sex marriage advocates.

The panel was picked by the governor, other state officials and state agencies and charged with evaluating New Jersey's civil union law and making a recommendation. Its recommendation was unanimous.

"The Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the panel said in a 79-page report based on an 18-month investigation.

Panel says New Jersey should allow gay marriage

Citing "overwhelming evidence," it said "civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey."


http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE4B96KJ20081211

Boldface mine.

The ONLY way that ANY couple would get the rights conveyed by today's "marriage" would be for them to get a civil union.

ANY couple that found a religion that would marry them could get married. "Marriage" would have ZERO legal recognition.


Yes, it's a rule change...but it circumvents the whole "god says this and god says that" thing and it gives equal and identical rights and requirements for both gay and straight couples.

I think your solution - while fair and worthwhile and even admirable - is still unfeasible.

Most of the same people opposed to same sex marriage now will oppose these rule changes. They don't want ANY legal recognition for gays, and even more people want to keep their state sanctioned marriage.

What you're describing is what we have now: the state provides the civil union via the marriage license, and those who want a religious rite get it in addition.

...but I still think that it'd be easier (and fundamentally more right) to give the fundies their god stuff and completely separate the legal and religious issues.

Respectfully, I don't think it's an easier fight.

Because their god says it then it must be so. You will have people who will refuse to acknowledge even gay civil unions, even if it were the law of the land, simply because their religion tells them so.

If not, do you think that might jaundice your perspective on marriage?

I am supposed to care about SOPs - Somebody Else's Problems

So I look at the problems of gay people who cannot get married. First, some of them are potential problems rather than actual ones. What if? What if the person I love is in the hospital and I am not allowed to visit them? What if they are unconscious and their parents, who hate me, are allowed to make their medical decisions instead of me?

Others seem to have more to do with money than they do with love. What if my partner dies and I am not allowed to collect their pension?

From my perspective, they are already better off than me. I tend to not care about the relatively minor problems of people who are better off than me. Now I might get called out for saying they are minor, but a "what if" looks like a minor problem to me, until it happens. Nobody should let a what if ruin their enjoyment of the now. Plan ahead, by all means, but don't be fanatical about it or dwell on worries or pretend that a what if is bigger than a problem that has actually happened.

Secondly, even the serious problems of a homeowner, say a waterheater that breaks, while it can really suck, would not be considered a huge problem to a homeless person. From that perspective, the positives of the situation, having a home, still outweigh the negatives.

Similarly, my perspective says that not having anybody who loves you is a far, far worse problem or situation than having somebody who loves you, but being unable to get certain state benefits. There's a whole slew of benefits - sex, psychological support, shared expenses, shared DVDs, companionship, etc., etc.,etc. that come from a good relationship regardless of whatever benefits you don't get from the state. A whole slew of benefits which already make you better off than me.

Don't come to me, then, and say I am an a$$hole for not caring deeply about your problems. Especially not when you yourself are quite willing, seemingly, to mock his problems, and by extension mine.

I don't think civil rights get weighed that way. It doesn't matter whose rights or what - they need to be equal.

You're not an asshole because you don't care about my problems. You're an asshole because you don't care about civil rights.

Actually that wasn't my serious question. My serious question is how ironic is it to claim the mantle of "the Reality Police" when you go around citing Elton John as your source for legal expertise?

No marriages for anybody; civil unions for all, straight or gay.

Bryant

as to the history of the word. But even if you were correct, I would not want to return (though clearly we have) to the Pleasy v Ferguson days. If they are the same, then call them the same. If not, then we have a seperate but equal problem.

Marriage is a legal term, not a religious one.

And.. who the fuck cares what Elton John thinks? He's not even a US citizen.

"A pamphlet is a reading material. A magazine is a reading material. Both are reading materials. Some prefer the name 'pamphlet' and others prefer 'magazine'."

That said, who cares what it is called. Give gays and lesbians the same 'rights' as us straight people already. Quite stuffing your brand of religion down everyone else's throats.

For you to simultaneously spread your misery around the Lounge regarding your neuroticism and problems with sex/relationships, and THEN come into DU lecturing us about what marriage is/isn't, is irony of the highest degree.

People resisting unfair treatment are not the problem, they aren't who needs to change, they are not what needs fixing. If we accept that premise, we lose every battle - we surrender to the right wingers without a fight.

Racism is not a problem because people complain - "whine, bitch, and moan" say the conservatives among us - about being mistreated.

The problem with homelessness is not that there is something wrong with the people who are homeless that we need to fix.

The problem with poor people is not something that is wrong with them that we need to fix.

Yet the right wingers frame every issue that way, and you are using their approach.

The issue here is bigotry and persecution, not people's resistance to bigotry and persecution.

You don't give a platform or endorsement - of any kind - to those who are fanning the flames of bigotry and persecution. They are the ones who are causing then problems. They are the ones who are "whining and bitching and moaning." They are the ones who need to STFU.

To give bigotry a platform, and then to tell those who complain about that to STFU is not "unity" and it is nor "inclusiveness." It is precisely the opposite.

This has already done tremendous damage. The "cultural war" bullshit of the extreme right wing and the religious right was dying out. losing its power, was becoming irrelevant - the people were moving on and rejecting that. Now the bigots have been revived and rejuvenated, bigotry has been validated and legitimatized.

Why, why, why, when we had them on the run would we want to play with fire like this and give them new life? The people like Warren were losing their grip on the public imagination, losing their power. Now they have been welcomed back - by us! - and will have one of their own showcased at the highest levels of power and in front of the entire nation. What we stand to lose in a thousand times more than we could ever gain by "reaching out."

Beyond the moral principles involved, beyond the betrayal of all of us on the Left (that is those of us who reject and oppose Reaganomics and the religious right, not some "fringe") this is a monumental political mistake, with incalculable long term negative effects.

This not about "gays." This is not about "what gays want." Rights denied to any of us threaten the rights of all of us. If we allow one group to be persecuted, we are all at risk. To frame this the way many are here is to marginalize and isolate a group of our allies, our brothers and sisters in the struggle, and to do that is to slavishly and obediently do the bidding of the extreme right and the bigots.

It is very alarming that there would be anyone here who is not crystal clear on this, that there is any ambiguity or confusion being introduced to the discussion, that there is any controversy whatsoever. Yet we who are defending human rights, and the principles and ideals of the party, are attacked and blamed for the controversy if we try to stand on these principles and ideals and speak out?

carry the same legal weight as marriages. Look up the British Civil Partnership Act of 2004. In England, Elton and his s/o have identical legal and civil rights as heterosexual married couples. He clearly doesn't understand that civil unions in the US are NOT equal and fail to accord the same rights as heterosexual marriage. In addition, not all states even recognize civil unions -- it is a national law in GB.

Answer: According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

My straight parents have been married for 40 years. They're atheists and were married by a justice of the peace. Shut the fuck up. I'm sick of this garbage.

:wtf:

I would have absolutely no idea who this idiot was if you hadn't let me know that a lovesick Lounge denizen has emerged here to give us queer folk the last word on marriage.

OMG I am laughing so hard I might pee!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :P

:puke:

RL

:rofl:

equal rights... inane?

I beg to differ.

WTF?

or did he have to wait for Bernie to write something for him?

Those (strait and gay alike) who are emotionally capable enough to have a long term committed relationship and WANT to be married, SHOULD have that right. You are NOT the final word or authority on ANYTHING!

I'm astounded that you are trivializing this.

This is about people's families.

Seriously...go fuck yourself.

Sounds like your M.O.

But not surprising, given the source.

:eyes: