I’d assume both of these are after the BANG BANG BANG. SLURP SLURP SLURP. POW POW POW.
Awesome response, Cisco! 
I am a(n amateur) linguist.
Otto & I went back & forth on this back during the Clinton administration. I lost, because arguing that marriage must not be construed to include homosexual unions was not viable. That doesn’t mean it must be construed to include them.
Marriage in a legal sense is whatever the state says it is. I favor recognition of common-law marriage, but not every state recognizes it. As for a dictionary definition of marriage, I consider polygamous marriages to be marriages, not “so-called marriages;” the state does not. In my state, marriage is legally defined as between a man & a woman. Maybe a given church defines it differently; maybe you define it differently in your personal lexicon; but the law is clear.
In the future, that may change.
Blammo! Kapow! Shazam! (great OP)
Proposition 8, in California of all places, has shown that gay marriage under that name can fail pretty much anywhere in this country. I really seriously suggest that gay rights advocates work on getting domestic partnership laws passed in every state in the country. I don’t think my home state or the rest of the Bible Belt will accept or allow gay marriage under that name for the next twenty years. That’s a minimum, not a maximum.
They might not accept domestic partnership either. I understand why fighting for gay marriage instead seems better; it doesn’t seem temporary & second-class & removable. But if marriage is defined as “a man & a woman,” your marriage you refused to call a domestic partnership or the like may be defined out of existence.
Meh. Fighting for marriage equality is what brought domestic partnerships to pass. DP’s were offered as a compromise. If people had fought for DPs, we’d be getting something even worse.
And we do have DPs in California.
See, now you just went and turned some of the homophobes on. They’re probably going to have to wear a cilice to help calm themselves, although that probably just reminds them of Silas, and they get turned on all over again.
Yep, some gays do that too.
Oh, you meant domestic partnerships…I was thinking the other DP…never mind.
What pisses me is that their objections seem so clearly to derive from the religious symbolism and definitions of marriage. Church weddings.
Here’s another newsflash for you:
**GAYS CAN ALREADY GET MARRIED IN CHURCHES.
GAYS DO GET MARRIED TO EACH OTHER IN CHURCHES.**
It’s not just liberal Episcopalians and Unitarians either: there are even some “maverick” Baptist ministers and Catholic priests who have blessed gay unions. Look it up. (True, they usually have to answer for it, but they’ve done it.)
You can’t stop gays from getting married before the eyes of God as they perceive Him/Her/It/Them. In fact, the religious recognition of marriage is the area where you have absolutely no power whatsoever, because the government cannot tell a church what it can and cannot bless or accept or preach where homosexuality or much of anything else is concerned.
Now see, this also works for you: the government cannot swoop in and say “The Assemblies of Mt. Zion Tabernacle of Fiery Righteousness Fellowship of the Blood of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Witnesses (reformed) must now recognize same sex unions as equivalent in every way to straight unions and stop preaching anything that can remotely be interpreted as homosexuality is evil”. THEY CAN’T DO THAT. Pick up a civics book, go online, ask whatever senior pastor has his G.E.D. from the best night school, whatever, and you will find that your church is safe to preach anything it wants to and like whoever it wants to and not like whoever it wants to, just as other churches are welcome to bless a union between a chimpanzee and a Madame Alexander doll if they so desire.
What we won’t isn’t “marriage” in the religious sense, it’s legally recognized next-of-kin status. That’s all. It’s not even a liberal issue: what is possibly more conservative a value than being able to say what becomes of your property or who you wish to have legal authority over your person and your estate in the event of your demise or incapacitation. It’s the unchallengable spousal benefits as regard property, taxes, health insurance, etc., that we want- we honestly don’t care what your religion teaches. We’re just asking you to render under Caesar, what you render up to God is up to you and I say up yours is how it should be.
I didn’t say it was a well-thought out philosophy on their part.
-Joe
That was awesome Cisco. It’s frustrating that so many citizens are comfortable voting away peoples’ rights.
Hey if we’re gonna defend “marriage”, why not make divorces illegal too? Funny that you never see that one proposed.
I work with a guy who’s vehemently opposed to gay marriage. He was looking through our health insurance documentation and noticed that unmarried homosexual partners can get benefits but heterosexual couples have to be married. He called my attention to the injustice of it all. I said, “They don’t have a choice. It’s illegal for them to get married.” He failed to see my side.
BANG on my brothers. POW on my sisters. PANGBOW, BOWPANG, WANGBOP, and all stops in between.
Well said Cisco. 
NOW who’s being all mavericky in here? You betcha.
Isn’t human nature wonderful?
Ahem. A little more seriously: IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT YOU REALLY SHOULDN’T VOTE ON ANYTHING AT ALL. Jesus Harry Christ. Let people marry if they want to. I assume if anyone wants to, they’re serious - who am I to get in the way?
The hotl lesbian action aside, it amazes me people don’t see this.
I’m biased, because I favour its legalization, but I don’t understand why people cannot see their place in history on this issue. People argued against women getting the vote, and history ran them over. They argued against civil rights, and history ran them over. They argued against religious freedom, and history ran them over. This is the same process, playing out the same way. History will run them over. It’s inevitable.
Separate but equal won’t do. I say that those who are in the right should keep fighting for what is rightly theirs.
Against Gay Marriage?
Fine: Don’t fucking have one
leave the rest of us alone
The pun police will arrive shortly. You’re advised not to resist arrest.
I think I love you.
And on the flip side, I’ll never forget reading about some old woman who called in to tech support to fix a broken gizmo, and when asked if she had read the manual, she responded, horrified, “Oh no! I ONLY READ THE BIBLE!!!”
You just can’t win against that level of stupid.
Gees, this thread is noisy. I think I need to go lie down.
You are all welcome to join me.
BANG BANG BANG