It may not matter today when you can get a divorce just because you want to but IIRC infertility used to be an acceptable reason for divorce once upon a time (when you needed a reason beyond just wanting a divorce).
Yes, spite. The people who oppose SSM are not profiting by doing so ( outside of the few demagogues at the top getting votes and money ); they aren’t protecting themselves or anything else; there’s no rational self interest behind their opposition. Not even of the ruthless variety. It’s spite; malice; whatever you want to call it. They hate homosexuals, and are taking this route of hurting them because it’s the one they can pull off. If they lived in Uganda they’d be voting to kill homosexuals instead.
So only Jewish marriages should be publicly acknowledged? 
If the glass don’t break, it’s all a fake.
It’s not the marriage that’s the “shoving” is the government acknowledgment of the civil right that people are characterizing that way. But you know what, that’s what happens when minorities finally get the government’s protection, bigots feel like they’ve been forced to do something that they don’t want to do and they have are – they are forced to recognize (even if they don’t accept) the humanity and equality of the minority that they want desperately to feel superior to.
And they whine about it. They whine hard. They cry. They say that this isn’t their America and things shouldn’t be this way and they need to go back when -insert minority here- knew their place and blah, blah, blah.
To which I say, open up, and choke it down and shut up. We are where we are in terms of LGBT rights because we have pandered to bigots. The very idea of putting civil rights up to a popular vote is nothing but pandering to bigots. We’re a nation of mealy-mouths who’ve backed down, time and time again, because bigots shout loud, and now it’s time for non-bigots to shout louder.
At the time, some friends in Seattle, which I’ve always thought of as a fairly liberal place, circulated a petition for a ballot initiative (or whatever Washington state has) to codify the argument the AG made and require that any couple that hadn’t shown proof of reproduction or efforts at reproduction (in the case of fertility issues) within five years of marriage should have their marriage dissolved, as the purpose of marriage as defined by their own government, was not being fulfilled. After six months of trying they were no where near the signatures that they needed (even though they were making it clear to people that it was a protest measure) and had to give up.
I know plenty of people in their 50s and 60s who have changed their mind about gay marriage – they used to be against it, but now they are for it. I don’t know how they came about this decisoin – probably not entirely rationally – but they did change.
A typo I deliberately left in my post considering the complete indifference to the OP’s use of the word “strait” instead of “straight”.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gay goose.
I think you can win people over with kindness and rational arguments more often than not. I didn’t even have to get in a discussion with my co-worker about this. They were talking to themselves, but I stepped up because if their side can be heard, than so can mine. And you know what? I think I did alter am opinion that day.
I have to work with these people, so calling them evil would be bad. But I would never sway them using that tactic. One the church does right is forgive, (as long as you have God in your heart – bla bla bla). I don’t know I’ve seen family change their minds about issues not unlike this one.
And kids who see protestors with signs saying hateful things… Well, when I was a kid I would wonder what was wrong with THEM and not the people they so hate. I feel bad for people that hate.
I understand I can’t know what it’s like to be in the position of a gay man in love, ready to have people see me and my partner as married. I know it would be sensitive, and I’m really sorry that it’s a problem. I really hope things change soon. I don’t want to invest in the next generation, I want to invest in people now.
What is being forced upon them is acceptance of homosexuality as normal and of gays as equal. There’s resistance to that, of a deep and irrational kind but real nonetheless, just as there was (and in many ways still is) resistance to being forced to accept blacks as equals, too. It might help to think of it as fear born of ignorance rather than as hate. What wouldn’t help is to accommodate it or compromise with it.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been more discussion on this in GD, but this site has been very helpful in tracking the day-to-day progress and testimonies of the Prop 8 trial here in CA. The defense in particular seems to be increasingly grasping at straws when it comes to making their case in some kind of coherent, consistent fashion.
I feel bad, lately I’ve been hearing a lot of homophobic talk from people I work with, and that I’ve been friendly with. I was thinking about filing a complaint as if I were a customer at the store, and tell them I heard some anti-gay remarks around the area these guys work. I hate how people just ignore it. Even racist things are overlooked by people who should know better.
The long term damage of this bill won’t be seen for a while.
The world has just gotten so strange. My first grade primer in school was a book called, “Dick, Jane and Sally”. Circa 1968. Now it will have to be changed to “Dick, Bob, Jane and Sally”. Good luck to young parents trying to explain this one to their kids.
A sleep over party will never be the same again!
Oh noez!!!
So, Perciful, you had no problem with the ménage à trois of your youth, you’re just not sure that when Jane and Sally are getting together that Dick should also have someone to play with?
What are you trying to say?
What’s so hard to explain? “Most of the time, boys fall in love with girls and girls fall in love with boys; sometimes, boys fall in love with boys and girls fall in love with girls.” What do you think the kids are going to ask, “I don’t get it; where’s the penis go?”?.
My only objection to State definitions of marriage is that I don’t think the State should be permitted to have a definition of marriage. Nor of priest, acolyte, shaman, diviners, soothsayers, Feng shui consultants, palm readers, dowsers, mind readers, remote viewers, faith healers, psychics, astrologers, or pretty much any sort of state definition of what people think, say and believe.
I also think that what you think say and believe should have no bearing on any legal consequences of your actions.
Of course, I am just another gun-toting liberal Christian mystic, so what do I know?
Tris
And I think that religion shouldn’t be allowed to define marriage. The difference is, government is supposed to be for all of us; so its definition should take priority. Your little sect shouldn’t have the right to tell everyone who can and can’t get married.
So you have no problem with fraud as long as someone slaps a religious label on it? If someone dies because they were foolish enough to believe the lies of religion and go to a faith healer, your position is “good riddance”?
What I am trying to say is all the text books in schools have to be replaced with PC ones. Ones showing that their can be two Daddies or two Mommies. Or having to explain you were from a sperm donor. I remember having to answer my kids questions and now there will be a lot more.
I remember dying of embarrassment when we had sex education class in fifth grade with the over sized pictures of male and female anatomy. Does anyone else remember those awful classes? I was so naive that after class I told my friend Jane that there was no way my parents had sex. They didn’t even like each other! Then I realized they had to for me to be alive and we both went ((Ewwww)) in unison. :eek:
Thanks for the well-wishes, but it’s not really a difficult concept to explain. “Why did the cat stop breathing?” and “Why does Daddy like olives but Mommy doesn’t?” were both way more challenging than “Why do Andrew and Walt live together?”