Commonwealth of Massachusetts

[Shelby]

I feel your pain.
​

 

[B_Stronzo]

Also, doesn't it denigrate marriage when lay people can marry others? The state of Alaska allows ANYONE to marry people twice. The state of Washington has a similar provision. So if I were to marry someone, even if it's a hetero sexual marriage, doesn't that denigrate the power of marriage, too, as a non religous person is conducting the ceremony?

Your case is sound Sklar as is any that presents the situation without the imposition of an historically religious agenda.

Even Shelby (in his unkindness and dismissiveness) cannot help but see the injustice much as he likes to throw his monkey wrench into the works.

I would however Shelby say "walk a mile in [my] shoes".

Pretty soon the country won't be divided into Red and Blue states but into equal rights ones versus unequal rights ones. It's that simple.

Sometimes I wonder if its in the drinking water... why is that Massachusetts saw the first skirmish of the War of Independence, the "in your face" act of the Boston Tea Party, and the spear-heading of the Abolishionist Movement of pre Civil War days yet these consistencies are lost on so many other Americans?

This isn't a mistake folks nor is it mere coincidence.

My state rocks and I'm glad to be a citizen of a state with sets the standard rather than belatedly reliquishes a biased stance.

Here's to old Massachusetts. Without us you'd still be speaking with an English accent..

 

[NCbear]

Marriage for homosexual citizens is a civil right and therefore, it appropriately does not really belong to the legislature for a referendum. If the US had waited around for its state legislatures to give women the right to vote or African-Americans the right to vote, millions of people in this country would still be waiting to be recognized as full citizens.

I just find it amazing to see how people still don't understand that there's a separation between church and state. Whether your religion sanctions or denounces same sex unions, it's the duty of the state to enforce everyone's civil rights uniformly.

My thoughts exactly. Marriage as a civil ceremony is VERY different from marriage as a religious rite. Had we separated the two much more effectively earlier in our country's history, we'd not be experiencing the current nationwide discomfort with the term being applied to same-gender couples (AND Mormons would have been able to maintain their tradition of polygamous marriages as sanctioned by their religion).

Imagine that.

NCbear (thinking even more strongly of Spain, as a cold front moves into the Piedmont Triad area of NC)

 

[DC_DEEP]

Sklar, thank you for your perspectives. In the last couple of years, I have been "researching" the issue of same-gender marriage, opposition to same-gender marriage, other legal "union" issues, the whole gestalt of it. I ask the opposition why they are opposed, and several of the same tired cliches always surface. When I counter those cliches, they ALWAYS shut down and refuse to continue a discussion.

"It's for procreation." "What about childless couples, either by biology or choice? Should we require one pre-marriage birth as a 'good-faith' downpayment on the marriage, or should we give them a time limit to reproduce?"

"It's better for children." "So, what do we do with widows? Assign them new spouses immediately, or take their children and adopt them into an intact marriage?"

"It's the basis of society." "No, learning to live together cooperatively is the basis of society. You are being divisive, not cooperative."

"It's traditional." "Uh, whose tradition? Not mine, certainly."

"It is what god ordained." "Perhaps, but I don't believe in your god. If that's the case, then by 1st Amendment rights, it has no place in government, and all government ties to marriage should be revoked. Including dependant deductions on your taxes."

"I just don't think it's right." "Well, I do, and I'm more intelligent than you, so my opinion trumps yours. I think it's right that you are exterminated. How's that?"

"Allowing same-gender marriage will weaken the institution of marriage." "I'm so sorry that your marriage is so weak that it will fall apart if I get married... but that isn't my problem, it's yours."

"Once we allow same-gender marriage, then anything goes. People will be marrying their pets." "Well, once a majority-age dog or cat or goldfish gives consent and signs a marriage license, then so be it. Until they reach majority age, give consent, and sign the license, pets should not be allowed to marry. I just want to be there when the first horse recites the wedding vows, I bet it will sound really funny."

The list goes on, but the idiots are NEVER able to support their opinions and assertions. Opinions are fine, but one person's opinion does not bind another person. If one person "doesn't believe in" same gender marriage, then by all means that's fine, that person should not marry another person of the same gender. I personally do not think christians should be allowed to marry, but I don't lobby congress to make those marriages illegal.

Without requiring me to be bound by any other person's religious views, can anyone give me a single good argument against same-gender marriage? When I have asked that question before, one of the answers that comes up is "but you are forcing me to accept a lifestyle that violates my beliefs." No, it does not. You don't have to accept anything if I get married. It will never affect you directly.

 

[Lordpendragon]

There will me more lucrative work for lawyers when they break up. :smile:

 

[DC_DEEP]

There will me more lucrative work for lawyers when they break up. :smile:

Point, game, set, match, and championship, my dear LPD.

Yet another tally on the side of my "get government entirely out of the marriage business" reasoning. If neither the government nor attorneys gained a single cent from couples marrying OR divorcing, and it was strictly a religious or "eyes of the community" thing, do you think the fundies would be in such a wad over it? Perhaps they would, but they would have less say in the matter.