gay marriage

[B_retracted]

No changes on the Federal level are likely until we elect Obama, I mean any democrat to the presidency next year... The republicans are too closely tied to the religious right and their contribution money to be motivated to care about it.

You're assuming Obama will get the nomination.

And that he won't be shot five minutes later if he does get the nomination.

Clinton is much more gay friendly that Obama will ever be.

 

[HyperHulk]

You're assuming Obama will get the nomination.

And that he won't be shot five minutes later if he does get the nomination.

Clinton is much more gay friendly that Obama will ever be.

It's a pretty safe assumption at this point that Obama will get the nomination.

An attempt on his life is likely, but so, unfortunately, would be an attempt on Clinton's life. The unreasonable hatred against Clinton seems to exceed any that I've seen for Obama or any other politician.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Clinton is more gay friendly than Obama from. Both have been equally supportive of gay rights and gay causes. Both support civil unions but oppose gay marriage, which disappoints me greatly, although I understand that they have to adopt that position to survive politically. The Clintons are the ones that let the Defense of Marriage Act become a law when it could have been vetoed.

I'm pretty sure that if Obama were president he would allow gays to serve openly in the military. And I think he'd support most other gay friendly initiatives.

You don't have to like Obama and it's great that you prefer Clinton, but you don't need to turn Obama into something he's not to advance your own interests.

 

[mjcp]

What can I do to help? Ya'll have made me start thinking about this.....and it isn't fair.

Email your Senators, Congressman, and/or Governor. Tell them what you told us... that marriage inequality isn't fair. Tell them you vote. Tell them that you vote for candidates that listen to your opinions and legislate accordingly.

 

[B_retracted]

Somehow I don't think that allowing gays to go off to war and get killed is too "gay friendly".

Clinton almost tripled Obama's votes in Kentucky today. Don't count her out yet (besides, millions of votes from two states WILL have to be counted no matter how much a certain someone wants to throw them in the trash).

 

[Notaguru2]

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was God that instituted marriage in the garden of Eden. As so many states grapple with whether to define marriage between a man and woman, it has already been done; [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Ephesians 5:20-33[/FONT]

However, I concede that the definition of marriage is really semantics in this modern age.

I am for civil unions that provide equal benefits and protection for gay as well as hetero couples, including tax benefits, insurance benefits, survivor benefits and the like. So, if your rich boytoy runs off with a younger hunk, you can still take half his shit in court.

 

[B_The Greek Dude]

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was God that instituted marriage in the garden of Eden.

There is no evidence that the Garden of Eden has ever existed. If God truly created marriage (and not humans), wouldn't he have talked to us and told us this outside of an old-book that had multiple authors and extensive editing (all by human hands)?

I am for civil unions that provide equal benefits and protection for gay as well as hetero couples, including tax benefits, insurance benefits, survivor benefits and the like.

Well, in the constitution, there's a line at the end that says:

. . .unless you're gay, black or a woman. If a citizen happens to be a gay black woman, may God help her.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was God that instituted marriage in the garden of Eden. As so many states grapple with whether to define marriage between a man and woman, it has already been done; [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Ephesians 5:20-33[/FONT]

However, I concede that the definition of marriage is really semantics in this modern age.

I am for civil unions that provide equal benefits and protection for gay as well as hetero couples, including tax benefits, insurance benefits, survivor benefits and the like. So, if your rich boytoy runs off with a younger hunk, you can still take half his shit in court.

Fine. You can quote the bible. Can you also quote the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

I don't happen to be christian, so why on earth would you think I was indentured to your bible?

 

[HyperHulk]

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was God that instituted marriage in the garden of Eden. As so many states grapple with whether to define marriage between a man and woman, it has already been done; [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Ephesians 5:20-33[/FONT]

Adam & Eve? Seriously? You're using Adam & Eve as justification for marriage? So first, you're telling us you're a creationist. Fine. Let's accept that. According to the story, if I remember bible school, Adam & Eve fucked up so badly that God exiled them from paradise. Their incompetence and stupidity condemned all of humanity to suffering and misery. Some role models for the institution of marriage. Then, their son killed their other son. Great parents.

So if God instituted marriage, the first people he bestowed this upon defied him and gave birth to a murder. I would think you'd want better outcomes from marriage than that.

Adam & Eve? I mean really, are we 5 years old here?

 

[SyddyKitty]

I support it but I do admit I support it rather blindly. I don't know all the benefits of marriage except for these:

I can stay with him/he can stay with me in the hospital.
Tax Benefits.
Whatever it's called when possessions whatnot are passed to the living partner.

That's all I know about marriage in the legal sense...
In short, I'd like Gay Marriage to be national before I find my mister right. <3

Anyone care to educate me further too, then?

>_> ...

 

[Spaguy]

I support equal rights for same sex partners, but the difference between marriage and a union became very clear to me when I got married a few years ago to my wife. We were married initially in a courthouse and then later had a religious ceremony. Although the government calls our the courthouse event a "marriage", it really is nothing more than a civil union or government regonition of our union. Our marriage took place when our pastor married us.

The government has forgotten about separation of church and state. They have a responsibility to support and allow unions between any two individuals (male, female, straight, gay, black, white, etc) that are regonized by all enities (pulic and private). Let the churches decide what they will allow as a marriage that's not the government's role. I think that is what others meant by getting the government "out of the marriage business".

 

[Charles Finn]

are you kidding me with Clinton?
don't ask don't tell and DOMA were both from Clinton
wake up.

 

[auncut10in]

Someone made the statement that they think Christians hate gay men because they don't like to think about anal sex. You know, I don't know if I believe that is 100% true. Or that isn't what I have seen. I don't think they hate any particular person. They just hate what they see as "sin" and they don't want to associate with it.

There are a lot of Christian people that are gay and they have the same beliefs about keeping marriage holy and sacred and between a man and a woman also. So this is where I am coming from. I have no doubt in my mind that we could get the support we need for the civil unions being recognized by the Federal Government....... I just don't have the hope and confidence that we would ever be able to overcome all the religious people that want to keep marriage holy between 1 man and 1 woman. Or the people period that don't want to see gay marriage. (For whatever narrow minded reason) But you know maybe I am just thinking negatively. I tend to do that.

What can I do to help? Ya'll have made me start thinking about this.....and it isn't fair.

I love your response and open mindedness. I just have a few comments for you to think about.

If this agenda Christians have against gays is just about sin, why don't we see "good Christians" trying to pass amendments to the constitution against fornication, adultery and other equally condemned sins? I have yet to see any church fighting with any zeal and trying to legislate against those sins.

As far as civil unions for gays and marriage for everyone else, do you really want to live in a "separate but equal" country? What if a church wants to marry gay couples? Would their religious beliefs not be tolerated? What, does God not exist in those churches? The California Supreme Court did not approve gay marriage, they just said that the government has no right to prevent gay marriage from taking place. Can anyone give me a good reason not based on religious belief why the government can constitutionally forbid marriage from anyone? If your church does not want to have gay marriage, well then fine. No one is going to care. Your holy covenant as you see it will still be protected and blessed by God.

And all of those that are using the Bible to deny this basic civil right, I might want to remind you that slave owners also used the Bible to defend their right to have slaves. The Bible clearly states that slavery is allowed. They were also "God fearing Christians" doing Gods work here in America. So do you want a government based on religious beliefs or on equal civil rights for all.

 

[Viking_UK]

I'd say it's about time that civil partnerships with full rights and benefits were allowed for everyone and leave "marriage" as a religious thing.

If people want to cite reasons of (Christian) religion for denying gay people the same rights as straights, they should really do that across the board. The bible forbids divorce, sex outside marriage, long hair on men, short hair on women, tattoos, piercings, women wearing men's clothes and men wearing women's, eating shellfish, wearing clothes made from mixed fabrics and so on. The list is pretty exhaustive. Let them try to enforce all of those things at the same time. Oh, wait, that would have an effect on their own lives so they wouldn't want to do that. After all, how many of the well-known evangelists are still married to their first wife? How many of them eat pork?

A couple of posters have mentioned that marriage is about having children. Fine. Who's going to tell a every woman who's past childbearing or has had a hysterectomy, or is sterile for any reason that she can't marry? Or any guy who's sterile for that matter. The arguments don't add up

 

[DC_DEEP]

Adam & Eve? Seriously? You're using Adam & Eve as justification for marriage? So first, you're telling us you're a creationist. Fine. Let's accept that. According to the story, if I remember bible school, Adam & Eve fucked up so badly that God exiled them from paradise. Their incompetence and stupidity condemned all of humanity to suffering and misery. Some role models for the institution of marriage. Then, their son killed their other son. Great parents.

Not to mention that (and ladies, please don't get me wrong, I'm just paraphrasing a book that I don't believe) according to Genesis, Adam was god's masterwork; Eve was just an afterthought. Obviously, I don't believe that, but christian literalists would have to agree.

 

[1BiGG1]

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was God that instituted marriage in the garden of Eden. As so many states grapple with whether to define marriage between a man and woman, it has already been done; [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Ephesians 5:20-33[/FONT]

However, I concede that the definition of marriage is really semantics in this modern age.

I am for civil unions that provide equal benefits and protection for gay as well as hetero couples, including tax benefits, insurance benefits, survivor benefits and the like. So, if your rich boytoy runs off with a younger hunk, you can still take half his shit in court.

Claiming some alleged god instituted marriage in the alleged Garden of Eden is so like the thinking of your basic Neanderthal = yawn!

After raping the world for centuries lets be glad Thomas Jefferson & Company put the lunatic Jews, Christians & Muslims back in the closet where they belong. If ever there was the work of a real god it would be creating the Age of Enlightenment movement and its greatest star being Jefferson.

 

[sdbg]

Having been a true bachelor for most of my life, marraige isn't up there on my list of priorities, yet I believe that anyone who wants to be joined in a legal union should be able to do it. I've always felt that if someone is really into me, they will stay close to me whether there is a piece of paper or not.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Having been a true bachelor for most of my life, marraige isn't up there on my list of priorities, yet I believe that anyone who wants to be joined in a legal union should be able to do it. I've always felt that if someone is really into me, they will stay close to me whether there is a piece of paper or not.

And if there were not a single law that dealt with marriage, I would agree with you. I don't give a damn about "holy union," but I do care about legal union.

 

[SotonDaddy]

I support it 100%.... should have happened a LONG time ago. Actually, I (along with many other same-sex couples) don't really care what you call it.... I know the religious biggots have a major hang-up for calling it "marriage".... Fine, then call it "civil partnership"; so long as the legal rights accompany the union.

I am an American who's partner is British; currently living in the UK. We are in a very loving "Civil Partnership" (British legal term). But, because the US has it's head in the sand regarding this subject, we are barred from entering the country without fear of being sent back as soon as we try to cross the border at the airports. And believe me, there was all sorts of protests here (UK) when the law came into effect 3 years ago; however the country (UK) has still survived, no financial or moral uphevals, and people (in general) are very accepting of us as a couple as well as individuals.

We would LOVE to come home to America, but can't..... such a shame.


Cheers!

 

[Hellboy0]

I am an American who's partner is British; currently living in the UK. We are in a very loving "Civil Partnership" (British legal term). But, because the US has it's head in the sand regarding this subject, we are barred from entering the country without fear of being sent back as soon as we try to cross the border at the airports. And believe me, there was all sorts of protests here (UK) when the law came into effect 3 years ago; however the country (UK) has still survived, no financial or moral uphevals, and people (in general) are very accepting of us as a couple as well as individuals.

We would LOVE to come home to America, but can't..... such a shame.
Cheers!

I agree. My partner is Australian. We met when I was living in San Francisco about 16 years ago but because of the US's religious leanings in it's politics, we had to move to Australia in order to live together.

Our new Federal government (just voted in) is working now to recognise Equal Rights for Gays, which means though we won't be calling it marriage, we will have the same health benefits, insurance, legal, etc rights that opposite sex unions do. The only thing we won't have is the word 'marriage' and it doesn't really bother me. Let 'them' have it, as it's not really doing that well anyway! LOL