I am probably going to get raked over the coals for this one

riddle me this batman...

Published on November 4, 2004 By alison watkins In Politics

Before I post what I am about to post I want to let everyone know that I am a 23 year old straight female....

What is the big deal about marriage when 50% of it ends up in divorce anyways? Some gay couples I know have been together longer than a lot of straight couples.....

Doesn't human companionship conquer all....I mean I'm getting married and I'm very happy to start this road ahead with my man...shouldn't everyone; gay, straight, bi...whatever deserve this too??

Comments (Page 2)

DPS

on Nov 04, 2004

"People who think marriage is just between two person is crazy. Marriage is more than that, it is also about being a "recongized" union recongnized by the coummunity"

And so this community is supposed to also give special rights to these people who are supposed to be in love? Personally I don't think the government should be recongizing any union as more special then another. I get it now. Your going to secure rights with marriage but your going to keep the gays from enjoying theirs.

Marriage in all the terms presented by government and the Church is a god damn hoax. No ceremony, priest, public official, or community can determine wether 2 people are truly in love. That is between them and their God. I would never let the government tell me wether me and my spouse are truly in love. They can not judge and if they do choose to Judge there should be no more benefits or burden to them as a couple then there was for them as singles. Maybe a name change that is all.

Daiwa

on Nov 04, 2004

If this argument were actually serious, then why don't conservatives focus their energy on passing constitutional amendments banning polygamy and bestiality and man-boy love and every other evil waiting at the bottom of that slippery slope? Those amendments would pass in an instant, and then we could have the actual discussion about what it is that disturbs conservatives so much about ordinary, consenting, adult gay couples.

There is a possible misconception revealed in this comment. I must admit that I haven't read the language in any of these state constitution amendments, since there wasn't such an amendment offered in Arizona, but I don't believe any of them specifically "banned" anything, just affirmatively defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Call that splitting hairs, if you will, but I believe it is accurate. I happen to support the notion of recognizing the reality of gay relationships, many of which are indeed more longlasting than the average heterosexual relationship, and that is actually happening where the rubber meets the road in the form of corporate recognition of same-sex partner benefits, etc., in many areas of the country. I think the reason "marriage" is the hot-button is that it would be symbolic of society's acceptance and enable the existing legal framework to be applied. On a practical level, all the legal mechanics that flow sort of automatically from traditional marriage can be accomplished through other means (transfer of property on death, etc.), it just requires that same-sex couples do something overt to achieve what is the legal default in traditional marriage.

Also on a practical level, it should not surprise anyone that a society made up overwhelmingly of heterosexual married couples would be in favor of defining marriage as between a man and woman, particularly if there was no language in there specifically "banning" anything. On a personal level, I believe people should have the freedom to lead the lives they choose, free of prejudice, as long as no harm comes to others as a result. Whether society should confer on that choice the same legal benefits & obligations of traditional marriage is a more difficult issue to sort out.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Tangled Wishes

on Nov 05, 2004

You know what I want to know? Why don't people say that gay marriages will SAVE the state that marriages are in? People should be able to do what they want in regards to marriage. Why can't you marry a minor? Well, you can with parent's consent. Why can't you marry your sister? For genetic purposes I assume. Why can't you marry your lesbian girlfriend? It's not like you're going to overpopulate, you have the partner's consent, and you're in love. What more does it mean? If two people are devoted enough to want to get married, who are you to tell them they can't, and if they then want to get a divorce, who are you to tell them they can't? People need to learn they have no control over the decisions of other people, and they have no right to make those decisions for someone else.

And so what if you get a divorce? There is no difference between a straight-couple divorce and a gay-couple divorce. Is there any difference between their relationship? Just because they're homosexual doesn't mean they don't go through the same feelings as a heterosexual. There is no difference, people!

Why are people so afraid of gay people? Where is the problem, and don't say it's because marriage is defined between a man and a woman, that's bs. No one would give a crap about putting out a law about defining marriage as a union between man and woman until men and men or women and women wanted to do it. People shouldn't give a crap what other people do, period. Come on, people, we're supposed to be "advanced", why do we have to think like we still live in the fucking dark ages???

~Sorry I went off on a rant
~a fellow Liberal

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 05, 2004

And so this community is supposed to also give special rights to these people who are supposed to be in love? Personally I don't think the government should be recongizing any union as more special then another. I get it now. Your going to secure rights with marriage but your going to keep the gays from enjoying theirs.

Marriage in all the terms presented by government and the Church is a god damn hoax. No ceremony, priest, public official, or community can determine wether 2 people are truly in love. That is between them and their God. I would never let the government tell me wether me and my spouse are truly in love. They can not judge and if they do choose to Judge there should be no more benefits or burden to them as a couple then there was for them as singles. Maybe a name change that is all.

Look, that is exactly my point. It may be difficult to believe, I actually vote against putting an amendent for defining marraige. So I am not trying deny anyone anything, and I think you assume too much of me. The question is never just about "right", is it? If it is just about right, then civil union should have solved the legal right inequality, the battle is always what to call this union, civil union or marraige. It is all about the wording now.. By the way, marriage is not a right, it is a privalge. If you look it up, you will understand what I meant. It is the same as driving a car. It is technically not a right, it is a privalage. In fact, it is a privalage to a binding. At this point, maybe you should help me to understand if you are talking about marriage in civil term or marraige in domestic sense. I think you have been jumping back and forth between the two terms, so I am unsure which one you are really refering to. There is no debate about domestic marraige among gay people. I think everyone reconigze that. That is exactly why I said gay people can shag all night long if they want too. So, I assume you are talking about civil marraige. However, if you really talking about civil marriage, then I am baffered as to why you bring up the phase: I would never let the government tell me wether me and my spouse are truly in love. Government never tell anyone if they are in love, not to homosexual or to heterosexual. Government make legal binding for marraige. Recongnization of a legal vow/binding is not the same as recongnization of love.

Look, you are right that union is between the persons involved. That can be just two person, or two persons with their family, or whatever. But the recongnition of marriage is something else. To give you an example, I am not white. Do I think people should prejudge me? No. Should there be a law or institution to forbid racist (thinking) against minority? The answer is also no. Not only it is inpractical to enforse such a law, it is unwise to do so. To do that is to believe that the government has the power to tell people how to think. We do not twist law around to do what we want it to, we have to ask ourselves if law is suitable and appliable for the situation. Trust me, I do not like racism and I encountered many, but do I want government to force people how to think? No.

Same theory applies to gay marraige. Do I think gay marraige should be more recongized by people? Yes. Do I think government should change people's definition of marriage, no. If a person want to be racist, frankly it is his/her choice. I will be disappoint of such a choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. If a person do not recongize gay marraige, that is his/her choice too.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 05, 2004

By the way, this is a very interesint issue, I like to point out. Nightline Tedd Kroppel said during the elections, he has asked many Americans about different issues such as War in Iraq, tax, eduction.... audiences are always very vocal about their opinions and their reasons, except for gay marraiage. He noticed that most people dislike the nation of recongization of gay marraige (I am not talking about civil union). Yet, people won't talk about it. The room he interviewed would have gone very quiet when he asked that question. This is just about the same as what I noticed. Most people oppose gay marraige, but you don't hear them very often. In fact, you wouldn't think there would be more than 10% of the people oppose gay marraige by their voice. They are the true "silent majority".

Hamster 311

on Nov 05, 2004

Why re-define marriage? Marriage (in it's current incarnation here in the US) is between a man and a woman. Currently, gay couples have, or can have, all the rights of a married couple except the right to leave the partner with the others social security income in the event of one passing away (major problem). If something called a Civil Union gives them this right, is that OK? I have yet to hear (or understand) why some activists are so insistent on it being called marriage.

Isn't this what happens when you mix God and government? Since the main argument seems emotionally based in that marriage is considered so dawg-gone sacred (and recognizing gay marriage would lessen its sanctity), and not so much a matter of whether or not homosexuals deserve the same partnership benefits with respect to insurance and Social Security as heterosexuals, might it not be easier to simply choose a different word? We could say "civilly coupled."

The question of who should receive benefits seems more a legal issue than moral, spiritual, or religious....unless it was God who set up the laws surrounding Social Security and the like.

Marriage is not always entered into as a holy institute (atheists DO get married, for one thing). Two people need only go downtown and file the necessary papers to be recognized as legally married. No church (or other religious endorsement) is required.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 05, 2004

Marriage is not always entered into as a holy institute (atheists DO get married, for one thing). Two people need only go downtown and file the necessary papers to be recognized as legally married. No church (or other religious endorsement) is required.

Exactly correct. I think some people get confused. US government in practice do not recongize marriage in religion ceremony, let it be Catholic or Hindu. Marriage thru religion ceremony has no legal binding. On the other, people can enter civil marriage without the blessing of the churches or temples. So, it is factually incorrect to say the civil marriage is hijacked by churches.

msladydeath

on Nov 05, 2004

I cannot marry my donkey. I can shag them all night long and that will be our business.

Actually, having sex with any animal is illegal in most states (I think maybe all states) and it is illegal to own man/beast porn.. It is legal in Mexico though...

Arkansas | Amendment 3: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman; Arkansas would not recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships from another state; would recognize common-law marriages from other states; the Arkansas Legislature would determine rights of married couples.

Georgia | Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Georgia constitution to recognize that marriage is only the union of a man and a woman; no same-sex marriages from other states or jurisdictions would be recognized by the state; no divorces could be granted by a Georgia judge in the case of same-sex marriages.

Kentucky Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Kentucky Constitution "to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?"

Michigan Proposal 04-2: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Mississippi Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to recognize marriage may be valid only when between a man and a woman; provides that a marriage from another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender is void in Mississippi.

Montana Initiative 96: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution effective immediately to define civil marriage as between a man and a woman; prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex; marriages performed in other states would be recognized in Montana only if between a man and woman.

North Dakota Measure 1: Same-Sex Marriage
State constitution would be amended to define marriage as being a legal union of a man and a woman; provides that no other domestic union can have the same legal effect.

Ohio Amendment 1: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Ohio Constitution to recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman; neither the state nor counties can give legal status to unmarried individuals whose relationships are intended to approximate the design or effect of marriage.

Oklahoma Question 711: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman; only married people are eligible for the benefits for married people; same-sex marriages from other states are not valid in Oklahoma; it would be a misdemeanor to issue a marriage license in Oklahoma; by adding Section 35 to Article 2.

Oregon Measure 36: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Oregon Constitution to say that the state's public policy is that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be legal. (Oregon statutes refer to out-of-state marriages as legal except where the marriage violates Oregon public policy).

Utah Amendment 3: Same-Sex Marriage
Amend the Utah Constitution to recognize that marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; no other domestic union would be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect; amendment would take effect on January 1, 2005.
Link

Hamster 311

on Nov 05, 2004

So, it is factually incorrect to say the civil marriage is hijacked by churches.

Please tell that to the religious right.

DPS

on Nov 05, 2004

Government make legal binding for marraige. Recongnization of a legal vow/binding is not the same as recongnization of love.

First off why are they using a term that has normally connotated love and religion for years? Second off if it isn't recognizing love then why should it be able to judge one more worthy then another and furthermore dictating what marriage is.

From BadNarick Campagna Website

When government permission is granted, the marriage constitutes a legal, binding contract, with terms that vary over time and with the location of residence. Since these terms are not written down, but are simply a matter of case law and creative legal tactics, a couple rarely finds out what they are until faced with a divorce. Men discover that their claim to custody can be prejudiced simply by their sex. Women find that that their worth as a homemaker varies from state to state. Prenuptial agreements are honored by some courts and heavily discounted by others. The couples find themselves bound, not by what they themselves have agreed upon, but by what government officials dictate.

Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites, rather than be a "one-size-fits-all" proposition defined by those outside the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be no more, no less. Ideally, the terms of marriage should be defined ahead of time with procedures to modify them as necessary.

Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.

Darviathar

on Nov 05, 2004

The Gay Marriage issue had its day at the polls in 11 states. The final tally? 11 losses. Even in liberal Oregon.

Basically, the people have spoken, and they are vehemently against this. Case Closed. There is no need whatsoever to push an unpopular mandate (that would benefit about 2% of the population) down the throats of the mass majority that clearly opposes it.

DPS

on Nov 05, 2004

And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.

JillUser

on Nov 05, 2004

I am in MI and voted No of Prop 2 because of the part that said "similar unions". I believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights as "married" couples when it comes to spousal benefits, rights with custody since so many gay couple share children these days, etc. I don't agree with it being called "marriage" though. I am not religious so it has nothing to do with what the bible tells me. I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman and any variation of a relationship is not the same. When my children ask me to explain what marriage is, I will tell them that it is when a man and woman love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

I don't believe that homosexuals are evil or bad in any way. I think they are people who are born that way and I wouldn't begrudge them the opportunity to have a loving family of their own. I believe that gay parents can be as loving if not more to their children. I do however see them as different and not normal. A homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship.

on Nov 05, 2004

I'm just glad I voted NO in Washington state, and apparently majority agreed with me.

T B

on Nov 05, 2004

And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.

This is the spin from the left. What is marriage currently? A man and a woman. Any law stating marriage as a man and a woman is only stating WHAT CURRENTLY IS! You can't BAN something that doesn't exist. To ban something implies to take away that which already is, and this is not the case.

It's a convenient way for conservatives to avoid saying that they are disgusted by gay people

This certainly isn't the case for me. I make no distinction among my friends, I'm not interested in their sex lives (gay, bi or hetero), It makes no difference to me. I also don't want them (any of them, of color, disabled, gay, speech impediment, purple mohawk, wiccan, et. al.) discriminated against.

The question still remains and again, I have never heard a reasoned explanation to: Why does it matter if it is called marriage or not? If something by another name resolves the inequity what's the problem?

There is a vocal minority (at least by my unscientific poll) among the gay community that are insisting it be called marriage. I don't get it. It apparently is NOT about the rights they are denied (social security) because even something other than marriage that solves it, is still not enough. So what is it? Geez, I wish someone could explain that to me.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!