I usually just refer to “the spouse”. If this confuses anyone, they can ask. No one has, as of yet.
And FTR: no objection to SSM by me (or the spouse). Stable loving relationships = good.
Again we have the argument that gay people should not be allowed to do something because it makes other people uncomfortable. Not because it causes damage to society, not because anyone is greivously harmed, not because it will hurt the people involved. No, we must ban them from using the term “married” because it makes people like midget uncomfortable.
:rolleyes:
I bet there’d be a whole lot of outcry in this country if we forced jewish men to forgo traditional jewish garb, if we forbad muslim women from wearing their traditional head scarves, or outlawed the wearing of crosses as jewelry all in the name of avoiding making people uncomfortable. But deny gay people basic things like true marriage and the privelege of serving in our nation’s armed forces, and suddenly it becomes an acceptable and reasonable thing to do.
I say, :rolleyes: again!
grumble
JOhn.
How so?
Do you really think that, if civil unions are recognized at a federal level, that any gay person is going to refer to their civil union as a “civil union?” Are they going to call that gold ring on their finger a “civil union ring”? If they’re turning down an unwanted advance, are they going to say “No thanks, I’m civil unioned”?
Of course not. They’re going to do what most gay people in committed relationships already do, wether that relationship has legal recognition or not. They’re going to call themselves married. Hate to break it to ya, buddy, but as it stands right now, if a guy tells you he’s married, you can’t make any assumptions about the gender of his spouse based solely on the information provided.
And this raises the inevitable question: what does the gender of this hypothetical random guy’s spouse matter in the first place? How does knowledge of wether he’s married to a guy or a gal affect your interaction with him in any way?
Said it before, I’ll say it again. I support same sex marriage bans. I’d also support opposite sex marriage bans.
Because the County of Montgomery wishes to protect the sanctity of their particular concept of marriage many of the forms and licenses on the subject are “Holy this” and “before God that”. I found it offensive.
I’d like to see Civil Unions come to light so that heterosexual couples could choose to not subject themselves to all the state enforced religious crap just to get the legal recognition of their status as a couple.
In my ideal world, Civil Unions are the default category, and if you want to go hunt down a priest to dress it up as “Holy Bonds of Matrimony”, you can choose to do that. In no case would the state presume to issue that characterization to any couple.
Well said.
Perhaps someone can explain this whole controversy to me, because I simply don’t see what the problem is. I have yet to hear a reasonable reason why a woman marrying another woman or a man marrying a man “threatens” my ability as a woman to marry a man. Personally, (being a Catholic) the only reason I can find that the Church would be against this is that a gay couple is unlikely to reproduce and therefore would not make a bunch of little Catholics who will grow up to financially support the Church. On the other hand, you can’t legislate love and I think the government should just stay out of it. I, for one, would be very angry if the government picked some arbitrary trait that I possessed and said I couldn’t marry because of it (that’d be rich - "no one with blonde hair can marry“). I would have a fit.
As far as the husband/wife issue. When it all comes down to it, instead of assuming husband or wife, we will end up saying “spouse” or some such. And, it might seem awkward to some at first but it will become second nature. Like saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.
Your opposition is based on your comfort level?
Why should we have legislation that puts constraints on love?
Jesus told us to Love one another, as I have loved you.
John was the “apostle whom Jesus loved.”
If marriage geys people out of a serially-oriented loving lifestyle and into stable relationships. that’s a GOOD thing.
Do homosexuals not deserve to be happy as well?
If you won’t let them marry, then stop taxing them.
John Mace: Thanks for clearing up the meaning of marriage banns for me. I guess that shows what I know of religious marriage rites. The flew right over my head. 
As for civil unions, I’m aware that Kerry supports these and I agree, it’s better than nothing. But, yes, it does still strike me as second-class citizenship. And since nobody else has mentioned it, I’d like to know if it reminds anyone else of the “separate but equal” policy of racial segregation. If I understand it correctly, civil unions will give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but they are not in the same class as heterosexual married couples. Is that right? Sounds like separate but equal to me. I thought the Supreme Court determined “separate but equal” to be unconstitutional.
This is what I find disappointing. By opposing any action at the federal level, Kerry wants to leave it up to the states. How is this any better? It seems like it would create even more divisiveness over the issue. Now you have dueling states. One state is more expansive in the rights they are providing to same-sex couples while another is more restrictive. What does this accomplish other than a battle over Full Faith and Credit? The Full Faith and Credit clause requires states to recognize legal status provided by other states. My Ohio marriage certificate is recognized in all 50 states, as it should be. Now, the state of Georgia (just an example, folks – I have in-laws in Georgia so we visit the state) may not appreciate that I married a pagan*, but that’s too damn bad. Article Four of the Constitution says I’m just as married in Georgia as I am in Ohio. I’m entitled to every marital right in Georgia and every other state. For example, if I chose to reside in that state or any other, I’d be filing our taxes as married, joint – Federal and state – just as I do in the state in which I was married. IMHO, it’s the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all states honor that clause. If it takes legislation to accomplish that --if it takes a Supreme Court ruling to accomplish that-- then so be it.
*Yes, I know they don’t discriminate based on religion. Just saying, what would be the difference if they did?
I don’t know why you support any marriage bans. But that being the case, at least you’re being fair and including everyone.
If my state and/or the federal government institutes “civil unions” that are essentially the same as “marriage,” I will gladly stand in line with same-sex couples and get “civilly unionized” or whatever. I’d be pretty ticked off if the PTB said that I couldn’t be civilly unionized because my partner is the opposite sex. I didn’t get married in a religious ceremony and God plays no part in our marriage as far as I’m concerned. I’m agnostic. Perhaps my hetero participation in the “civil union” farce would serve as a message that we are not all opposed to the sanctity of a loving union.
As a matter of fact, I’d fully support a measure striking all references to marriage in all legal documents, since it only applies to religious doctrine. You wanna get married? Go to a church. But it’s going to require a civil union license that any adult couple can get, regardless of race, sexual orientation, and religious orientation. You wanna ban same-sex marriages? Fine, ban it in your church. All others can get hitched by a justice of the peace or other non-secular officer of the court.
Righty-o. That’s why I refer to my wife as my wife, and whether the state calls us “married” or not in the future, the state (Oregon) married us.
As it stands, I’ve yet to see or hear anyone come up with a reasonable explanation of what we’re protecting the “sanctity” of marriage from.
I really want to know. Are people going to stop getting married because just anyone can and it’s not really that special anymore? Is the divorce rate going to go through the roof because everyone knows that gays are not capable of monogamy? Are children going to be scarred for life because they saw a couple in the supermarket that was different than what they see at home? Is the world as we know it going to suddenly cease to exist?
…human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… Mass hysteria!
Then don’t make civil unions Gays Only. “Secular and Equal”, perhaps?
Oh, well in that case, okay… I think.
Count me in!
There are, and always have been gays in the military. They join for exactly the same reasons as everyone else. Somehow, this has not caused the cat to lie with the dog, or chaos in the streets, or the end of the world. Alexander the Great was gay (or bi?), Ancient Greece and Rome had gay soldiers in the ranks; Sparta was a dominant land force in Greece, Athens was the big naval power and Rome was able to conquer most of their known world. During World War 2, gays went to war and kept quiet about their private lives. Since then, Clinton started the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Maybe people did’t like it, but it was a first step and recognized that it isn’t only straights that enlist or get drafted. Giving them the “right” to join is nothing more than a recognition that they are already there anyway. There is nothing about being gay that says a person can’t follow / give orders or can’t fight as well as anyone else.
Gays should be allowed to marry, and then if heterosexuals want a Super Special religious union that sets them apart from the rest, they can have their covenant marriage.
Originally posted by **Live Better Electrically! **
hehehe, fun link.
But, no.
Gays should be allowed to have a covenant marriage as well.
Isn’t that the whole point? Homosexuals need equal rights, because homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. If heterosexuals can get married by a Mexican marmot, or a Dutch dill-pickle, so should homosexuals.
How’s about we get the state out of the marriage business, then?
If a couple wants to take their Civil Union license to a church and a priest and call themselves married, that’s their business… and it’s up to them to find a church and priest to go along with it.
If, OTOH, a couple doesn’t want anything to do with the Holy Matrimony schtick, they can take it to a judge (or equivalent representative) to be signed and file it away.
And that’s just one of the things that reinforces my love of my chosen state.
Now if Lon Mabon and his ilk would go to Idaho with the rest of the bigots, and take the white supremacists from the Roseburg area, the air would be just a touch fresher.
Discriminatory against people in religiously mixed marriages, atheists, agnostics, and those people whose religions hold that marriage is a civil contract. And probably some other people I can’t think of off the top of my head.
See Northern Piper’s post some time ago for an overview of how the Church usurped marriage from the participants in the English-speaking world and how the state took it back and kept it.
Yes, that is the whole point. I was saying that gays should enjoy equal rights, and then people who feel an urgent need to be exclusive or special can create their own extra-legal crap on the side–crap in which others probably would not care to participate. For example, we can have civil rights but allow racists to have their own little groups, websites and Grand Wizard ceremonies, etc. So we can also have gay marriage and let religious zealots have their church-based covenant marriages, etc, if they want to assert their marital “superiority.”