Marrige, same sex only?

[denuseri]

Well we had to get to this topic eventually didn't we.

Should same sex marrige be legalized?

Should it be recognized but not given the title "marrige".

Or should it be disallowed alltogether?

Or should it remain indivdual state's decisions?

[denuseri]

My own views should be obvious to my friends. I support same sax marrige accross the board.

[mkemse]

I see no reason, why 2 Consenting adults of the Same Sex can't marry, once you are an adult what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own busnies, this Nation right now has too many far more important issues to deal with then whether same sex couples can marry
If a same sex couple wants to marry, it has no effect on my life so why not let them

As Our Own Consistution even says:

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

It does not say all women, all men ect it says ALL Men which could be interpreted as all PEOPLE be they Male, Female ect are equal, thus meaning Gays have the same rights as anyone lese
If Gays, Lesbians, Transgender wish to marry each other, let them, what difference does it make

[DiablosLittleOne]

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be with the person they love; legally or otherwise.

[mkemse]

I agree 100%, this is the Land Of Thee Free

[voxelectronica]

I don't see marriage as a civil right for sure as it is actually a legal right. Civil right insinuates that if i was denied marriage by an individual I could sue them for violation of my civil rights. Every girl who ever said no would be in court.

I believe that marriage is rite. It's a personal and sometimes religious ceremony in which people express their love and commitment for one another. Everyone has the ability to have that. This idea in the GLBT community that the government is saying you can't get married is BS. I can marry a girl right now if i wanted to. We can rent out some nice venue and have a big white wedding it's a rite after all.

What I don't believe in is this legal marriage idea. I don't believe in it for straight couples, I don't believe in it for gay people. I don't understand the logic of "baby I love you, lets invite the government into our house". I get very frustrated with the GLBT community when they recognize this AS fact. That marriage *is* a form of government repression and then go on to vote for it.

No! We need a total re-vamp of this law. Marriage is incredibly archaic (legally) and easily circumvented. The rights that are being fought over in the GLBT community are things that a well written living will can take over.

So this pole, unfortunately does not have my answer. "Marriage is an archaic form of government repression and should be removed from table for everyone. The government is not needed to enforce rites."

[Thorne]

You don't have to call it marriage, since that seems to push some serious buttons for the religious right, especially. But same sex couples should be allowed all the legal rights and priveleges of mixed sex couples, regardless of what you call it.

[Thorne]

It does not say all women, all men ect it says ALL Men which could be interpreted as all PEOPLE be they Male, Female ect are equal

One can interpret any way one wants, but Jefferson literally meant all men. Women were not considered politically relevant at the time, and were certainly not considered to be the equal of men in any view.

[Thorne]

"Marriage is an archaic form of government repression and should be removed from table for everyone. The government is not needed to enforce rites."

I have to disagree with at least some of this. True, the government does not enforce rites, and in fact, you can be married simply by signing a license, without undergoing any ritualistic ceremony whatsoever.

But in order to establish legal boundaries, so that one spouse (partner) can make important decisions for the other spouse during times of emergency, and also to provide legitimate means of inheritence, some form of recognition of the union is required. I suppose that some of this can be accomplished through some form of legal documentation, but until the federal government recognizes such partnerships as valid for tax purposes, for example, the idea of marriage or life-partnership or whatever you like to call it, is required.

[voxelectronica]

One can interpret any way one wants, but Jefferson literally meant all men. Women were not considered politically relevant at the time, and were certainly not considered to be the equal of men in any view.

Thorn not only are you correct but to go a bit further. "Men" was also meant as citizen, as at the time of the constitution there were PLENTY of groups of people living in this country that were not considered relevant. Multiple races in this country were viewed as live stock. If you didn't come from the right parts of Europe you were not human in this country for a very, very long time.

[subcat]

Everyone has the right to adopt or have children...why not marry? i know more gay couples that have been happily together longer than i do "staight" couples. They have my support!

[voxelectronica]

I have to disagree with at least some of this. True, the government does not enforce rites, and in fact, you can be married simply by signing a license, without undergoing any ritualistic ceremony whatsoever.

But in order to establish legal boundaries, so that one spouse (partner) can make important decisions for the other spouse during times of emergency, and also to provide legitimate means of inheritence, some form of recognition of the union is required. I suppose that some of this can be accomplished through some form of legal documentation, but until the federal government recognizes such partnerships as valid for tax purposes, for example, the idea of marriage or life-partnership or whatever you like to call it, is required.

I don't believe there should be any tax benefit for marriage at all. I don't see the point in it. I do understand that in American history there was a time and a place for it, to encourage people to procreate and settle this country. We don't need that anymore and have come complacent in the idea that the government should give us something for doing something we would do anyway.

That's why my idea is that *all* legal marriage should be annulled legally. Tax breaks should changed completely and issues of inheritance, burial rights, medical decisions etc. should all be be handled with our current legal system of living wills, power of attorney etc. Those documents should be held up without contest. This would actually benefit the GLBT community!

Yes I believe gays and straights should have equal rights... the right to nothing.

[js207]

I don't believe there should be any tax benefit for marriage at all. I don't see the point in it. I do understand that in American history there was a time and a place for it, to encourage people to procreate and settle this country. We don't need that anymore and have come complacent in the idea that the government should give us something for doing something we would do anyway.

That's why my idea is that *all* legal marriage should be annulled legally. Tax breaks should changed completely and issues of inheritance, burial rights, medical decisions etc. should all be be handled with our current legal system of living wills, power of attorney etc. Those documents should be held up without contest. This would actually benefit the GLBT community!

Yes I believe gays and straights should have equal rights... the right to nothing.

I agree absolutely. If you want to go and put on a fancy white dress or suit and walk down the aisle of a church with your girlfriend/boyfriend/goldfish/kids or indeed alone and recite some vows in front of a priest, that's between you and that church: it's a religious matter, hence nothing to do with the government. Equally, it should have no meaning to the government: no tax breaks or any other special treatment based on whether you have or have not carried out some religious ritual. We should all be treated and taxed as individuals by the government, without discriminating on anything - including marital status.

[voxelectronica]

js207 and THAT is why I get so frustrated with the GLBT community at large. You can get them to that point, they will agree completely and then when you say "OK so lets work on getting rid of this whole marriage thing all together, I even have some conservatives who agree and Libertarians are all about this lets go!" but then it's like "wait but no I want want their having. I want to be accepted by society and a legal marriage is the ONLY way that's going to happen... blah blah blah".


Box: think outside of it.

[js207]

Vox: Absolutely. Between that and the fact they pushed this issue too hard too soon, when even in CA it didn't have enough popular support to be accepted, they are perhaps their own worst enemies. Of course pushing that hard against public opinion backfired on them, hard - where if they had just waited a few more years, built up a little bit more sympathy, they could have achieved their goal properly. Now, these antics mean they'll have to get a supermajority behind them to overturn the barriers they just erected!

[Ragoczy]

Marriage was originally a religious concept and should remain so.

The government got involved because as populations grew and changed the old way of tracking births, deaths and marriages at the local parish became tedious and inaccurate -- government took over the job so that it could be centralized (and to take over the revenue). Government's legitimate role in "marriage" has solely to do with property rights and child custody disputes. It is solely an enforcer of the contract.

Therefore, government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. Unions, between whatever combination of individuals, should be recorded with the government as a contract -- essentially a required prenup. The government should care what gender those individuals are or how many of them there are -- it should simply record the contract and enforce it if/when the relationship ends.

Marriage is between those individuals and their church -- if their church recognizes the union as a "marriage" under it's rules, then it is so.

[mkemse]

As long as the Couple is Happy, call it a Marriage, a Union, whever people want to call it, the most important thing is that they are happy together, if so it makes no difference what it is called

[voxelectronica]

JS... don't get me started!

I noticed a lot of straight support for the GLBT marriage cause but more and more I'm noticing gays and lesbians (specifically) getting away from it. A lot of them with the understanding that this country has more issues than marriage and understand that attempting to hijack the will of the people with the court system is no way to gain acceptance in this country. Some of them even understand that marriage isn't going to give them acceptance either.

[Diablo]

As long as Government is involved with marriage, Religion is the only reason to not allow it and should have no say. Fine you don't want to allow Adam and Steve to have a ceremony in your church, that is your right. The Government has to allow them to sign a paper saying that they are legally a corporation of 2 individuals. This to me is no different than when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry.

If the Government really does not want to allow marriage for one group then no one should be married in the secular sense and everyone should have a civil union with the exact same rights.

[voxelectronica]

Diablo... actually, what you are talking about is marriage as a civil right, it is not. It's a legal right which the government can restrict.

Remember though this is not just about what the government wants. Gay marriage has been voted down by states. This legal issue has been brought up to several states who have voted against it. This government is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The people of these states have spoken.

[Diablo]

Regardless of how the people voted it is the governments job to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. If it is granted to one group it needs to be granted to all. So as I said as long as government is involved it is a right and should be granted. Governement has no reason to restrict this group and not that group.

Government can and has restricted the rights of blacks, how is this any different? The scale is not the same but the act is no different.

[Ragoczy]

Diablo... actually, what you are talking about is marriage as a civil right, it is not. It's a legal right which the government can restrict.

Remember though this is not just about what the government wants. Gay marriage has been voted down by states. This legal issue has been brought up to several states who have voted against it. This government is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The people of these states have spoken.

It is a civil rights issue, there's an equal protection argument to be made. Further, there's an unenumerated rights argument.

As for "the people", it simply shows the tyranny of the majority; something our government was specifically designed to guard against. "The people" might speak, but they don't get to restrict the rights of others no matter how loudly they do so.

[voxelectronica]

This is not a Civil rights issue. Civil rights pertain to protecting the application of the constitution. Marriage is not part of the constitution.

I roll my eye when i hear gay people say "we can't get married". That simply isn't true. I can marry whoever i want. I can marry this lovely girl I'm chatting up right now if i wanted to. The government is not my father. It can not tell me what i can and can not do. If i marry a girl right now the ceremony will be the same and the government will not stop me.

As a constitutional representative democracy we are here to uphold the ideas of the people of this country. The constitution was there to protect the rights of the minorities and it does not mention marriage accepts when modified by the will of the people. Let's not forget though that the constitution was written to protect men from the right parts of Europe. At the time it was written a lot of other type of people were considered livestock not humans.

So this idea that our founding fathers thought "hey one day Africans, Irish, Native Americans, Chinese etc will all live here in harmony" is just not true. Most people weren't allowed to immigrate into this country because they were "dirty". We held those British idea of superiority in our original documents. The beauty of how the our government system works is that it IS the will of the people who can change those ideas.

[Diablo]

Here you argue the letter of the law and not the intent, yes originaly America was founded on the right of white men to not be shakled by a government or a particular brand of christianity but America has evolved somewhat. The rights of the one must be the rights of the many.

The rights that I have with my wife as a married couple must be given to gays that wish to enter into that legal status. Not allowing them to is unconstitutional.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[voxelectronica]

well I'm sorry but the letter of the law states that this is NOT a civil rights issue. The argument that it's unconstitutional has been made and it's failed. So it's not like I'm the only person out there saying that. Actually there are a lot of African American groups out there insulted that this is likened to actual Civil rights struggles.

Ohhhh the 14th amendment. Did you know that the sitting president VETOED that amendment stating that it was unconstitutional and that the majority of states voted against it?

At any rate the Equal protection act is there not to guarantee any sort of equality but equal application as applied to civil rights. See before the 14th states could pick and choose who was protected by the Constitution. The 14th makes it so they can not do this this. This goes back to civil rights issue which per the letter of the law gay marriage is NOT.

There was no intent to make marriage a constitutional issue all 200 plus years ago. There was no intent to protect peoples "rights" of marriage. Not even a little bit. In fact the original constitution was designed to keep the government OUT of people's lives not interject it in their relationships.

For people who truly believe in freedom the only way to go is abolish marriage make it a complete non government issue and keep it an issue between private citizens and contracts between only them. Asking the government into your bedroom is a wide spread travesty that has NOT been equally applied since it's conception.

[Diablo]

But that is exactly what they are doing. They are saying this certain group can not receive the the same rights that another one does. The laws are not being applied evenly based on sexual orientation.

And why exactly?

Because of religion which is supposedly separate. I have yet to hear any reasonable rationale to not allow them to. The because god said so makes more sense then the others.

Oh joy the 14th amendment BS, yes it was unusual in its ratification but the previous 7 years in US history were a bit unusual as well. The whole thing for those that do not know was the Southern states that were the confederacy were forced to ratify it to be allowed back into the Union, even though the Union stand was that they couldn't have left in the first place. 3, IIRC, states had officials that when this became public knowledge attempted to rescind their ratification. The Union then basically just counted all the votes for it including the forced ones and ignored the later against votes.

I agree on your last point fully, the easiest cleanest way to do it would be to make all marriages civil unions, allow gays to have them enjoying the same exact rights and leaving marriage to church.

[denuseri]

First of all not everyones marrige is tied to a religious faith.

It is one of the reasons civil unions (state santctioned marriges developed, in addition to other legality issues.

Under the Comity Clause of the Constitution, the public acts of one state must be recognized by other states and this principle has long been established in U.S. law.

Article 4 - Section 1 -of the U.S. Constitution declares:

Each State to Honor all Others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It played a majior role in finally bringing about the acceptance of inter-racial civil unions in the past despite the opposition of the majiority.

Why not the provide the same acceptance for same sex civil unions as well?

The answer is found in two little words.

Fear and bigotry.

[voxelectronica]

I disagree with this argument of fear and bigotry. I would never vote to change the constitution to widen the definition of an institution that as far as I'm concerned is completely over stepping the boundaries of government into the private lives of the citizens of this country. I know *a lot* of conservatives who vote the same way for the same reason. It's because real freedom means little laws and no government.



the 14th is totally BS. I don't even understand why you would bring it up. It's a civil rights amendment that allowed a lot of the civil rights movement to go through. Not that I'm against the Civil Rights movement by any stretch of the situation I just don't want things that important to be based off a lie.

Also let's not forget that the separation of church and state does not pertain to how the public votes. The public CAN vote on their morals that's actually how we get legal rights. Marriage is a legal right and legal rights are based off of things like the mass morals of the public. That's how we get most laws like prostitution.

I don't agree with prostitution laws. I don't agree with most laws but they are the laws as voted on by the people and I live in a Constitution representative democracy so that's life. I can't screw hookers. (unless i go to Nevada).

Of course like any good Anarchist I'm not above breaking the law.

[Diablo]

But it is the job of the government to protect the minority from the votes of the majority. Lets vote and say people with blue eyes can't marry and say that somehow it passes it is then the governments job through the courts to say this is ridiculous. But you seem indicate through your posts that oh well the people voted. The American Constitution was based on the idea that the dirty masses were not quite smart enough to be really in charge of decision making.

Those laws are based on morality as had been handed down by religion, which incorporated a set of rules that helped society stay together in a supernatural form of government. We are beyond this and a lot those are good and need to be controlled by law. But 2 people regardless of gender to form a union with legal rights is not one of them and the government other than recognizing that a union has occurred between 2, or if you want more should have no say.

Example the Courts to balance the power of Congress and the President, to decide what these same people do with their votes as it impedes others and to make official interpretations. Another would be the Electoral College, you can can vote for the group of people who will actually vote, not for them directly in case they make some serious blunder.

[voxelectronica]

But it is the job of the government to protect the minority from the votes of the majority.

No it isn't. That's the job of the Constitution, marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.


The American Constitution was based on the idea that the dirty masses were not quite smart enough to be really in charge of decision making.

No the constitution was there to make certain rights unalienable. Marriage wasn't one of those rights.




But 2 people regardless of gender to form a union with legal rights is not one of them and the government other than recognizing that a union has occurred between 2, or if you want more should have no say.


This is the problem I have with gay marriage proponents. You agree that the government should not be involved then argue the case that they should. You agreed that the government has no place in marriage and are then go to argue that it's the governments job to protect it.

Well it isn't. The government is not there to protect anyone. There was a time when the police were privatized.

[shayna{L_D}]

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be with the person they love; legally or otherwise.

amen sista!

[js207]

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be with the person they love; legally or otherwise.

Fair enough - but also a red herring: this isn't about "being with" anyone, it's about getting government endorsement of and special treatment because of a relationship. I don't believe couples should be entitled to different tax status because of their relationship, whatever the genders involved.

[TwistedTails]

Stripped of all the politics it comes down to five points to consider.


1. The Governments and laws of the United States of America are by demand of the people blind to the race, sex, or age of a citizen or group of citizens hereafter called the people.

2. By demand of the people all of the Governments of the United States of America maintain a separation of church and state. therefore the all encompassing term Marriage, needs to be separated into its two components. For clarity the term Marriage will be used to define the religious aspect of marriage and Civil Union to define the governments.

3. The religious institution of Marriage. Each religion is free to define Marriage and its eligibility as it sees fit. The peoples demand for separation of church and state prohibits the government from regulating church practices.

4. The governments institution of Civil Union must by the peoples demands for a racial and gender blind government constitute a union between two citizens. Defining a person first as a citizen for regulatory purposes requires that the aspects of race and gender be ignored as all citizens are equal entities under the law. Requiring that members of a civil union be of any particular gender violates the peoples demand that the governments of the United States of America be blind to gender in law.

5. A States Constitution must not be amended in any fashion that restricts the rights of a citizen based upon their Age, Race, or Gender. To do so violates the demand of the people to equal treatment under the law.

(reprinted from an earlier article I posted elsewhere)

My opinion is mine, if you are going to flame me for it please be intelligent and literate. Or at least turn up the heat. I have marshmallows waiting.

[js207]

...
1. The Governments and laws of the United States of America are by demand of the people blind to the race, sex, or age of a citizen or group of citizens hereafter called the people.


That would be nice, although it is not yet the status quo. One day, perhaps the government will actually be required to be race and gender blind, but not yet. As for age-blind, that has some interesting side effects for liquor and driving laws, not to mention Medicare and Social Security...



2. By demand of the people all of the Governments of the United States of America maintain a separation of church and state. therefore the all encompassing term Marriage, needs to be separated into its two components. For clarity the term Marriage will be used to define the religious aspect of marriage and Civil Union to define the governments.


There, we can agree: the government has no business getting involved in "marriage". I'm not convinced the existence of "civil union" is necessary or even desirable, though. If we agree it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of age, gender and race, how is it acceptable to discriminate on marital status?



4. The governments institution of Civil Union must by the peoples demands for a racial and gender blind government constitute a union between two citizens.


Fortunately, marriage is not restricted to citizens: I know plenty of people who would be rather upset by that new discrimination!

On a more serious note, do you believe civil unions should be restricted by age, relationship between people, number of people...? Should, say, Frasier Crane and his father get these benefits, since they cohabit and would probably benefit financially? What about the three member "couple" I know in England - should the three of them get this status?

[Diablo]

No it isn't. That's the job of the Constitution, marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.

No the constitution was there to make certain rights unalienable. Marriage wasn't one of those rights.

This is the problem I have with gay marriage proponents. You agree that the government should not be involved then argue the case that they should. You agreed that the government has no place in marriage and are then go to argue that it's the governments job to protect it.

Well it isn't. The government is not there to protect anyone. There was a time when the police were privatized.

So the Magical Piece of parchment flies around protecting people? No the Government with in the framework of the Constitution does.

Now we have the Unalienable Rights of the Decleration of Independence in the Constitution. The Constitution was formed to define the government and its powers. The Bill of rights including freedom of religion, which is the reason against gay marriage and this ridiculous semantics argument, were added.

I never said they should be involved with religious marriage but civil union that grants x rights and marriage that grants the same rights is the same thing in a legal sense and legality is the realm of Government.

I give up trying to use any sort of reason with you have fun in your anarchy.

[TwistedTails]

That would be nice, although it is not yet the status quo. One day, perhaps the government will actually be required to be race and gender blind, but not yet. As for age-blind, that has some interesting side effects for liquor and driving laws, not to mention Medicare and Social Security...

I should have kept the original title for this piece and prefaced it to set a perspective. the original title was "On the subject of gay marriage and constitutional amendment" and it was written in response to an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution. In that context I feel that citizens of the "age of majority" would have been presumed by the reader. I sadly must agree with you that my first point is not the "status quo". But I speak to the ideals of the document. The Constitution already provides for the ideal of equality, It is "We the People" that fall short in making it the truth.



There, we can agree: the government has no business getting involved in "marriage". I'm not convinced the existence of "civil union" is necessary or even desirable, though. If we agree it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of age, gender and race, how is it acceptable to discriminate on marital status?

Indeed we do agree that the government has no business being involved in "marriage" by my definition of it. The civil union does however exist, regardless of it being an undesirable state of affairs in its current form. That is why it must be changed if not abolished.



Fortunately, marriage is not restricted to citizens: I know plenty of people who would be rather upset by that new discrimination!
Indeed they would, for many it would close off the path to citizenship that is offered through the civil union, and for even that one reason, though there are many more, the concept of civil union must be corrected rather than abolished.


On a more serious note, do you believe civil unions should be restricted by age, relationship between people, number of people...? Should, say, Frasier Crane and his father get these benefits, since they cohabit and would probably benefit financially? What about the three member "couple" I know in England - should the three of them get this status?

No, I do not believe that civil unions should be restricted in any way. If (using your example) Frasier Crane and his father decided to enter a civil union, merge their assets and give each other specific legal rights in regards to those assets. Yes they should be able to form a union. As for your three member couple in England. In the context of this post, No. Only because the U.S. government has no authority over citizens of England. If that trio were U.S. citizens then yes they should be able to form a union. I would also add that the union be able to be amended at a later date to include additional partners should the original parties choose to do so.

Again this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[Ragoczy]

No the constitution was there to make certain rights unalienable. Marriage wasn't one of those rights.

Incorrect. The enumerated rights do not deny the existence of other rights held by the People. The Constitution's purpose is to enumerate the powers of government -- any right or power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution is held by the People and the States.

I draw your attention to Amendments 9 & 10, respectively:


Amendment Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment Ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Marriage doesn't have to be an enumerated right in order for it to be a right held by the people.

[mkemse]

It seems to me as many Politicians have said there are far to many important issues pending now then to Ammend either the US Contitution or States version over same sex marriage, if same sex couple want to marry let them, cal it a union, a marriage what ever you want just let them marry and let them be

[Muskan]

I do not care about same-sex marriage.

It is Individual matter, and government has nothing to do with it.

Overall I denounce any sort of legalization of marriage, it is useless.

What can be legitimate and proper and sacrosanct is the "Contract" base of a mutually beneficial relation.

The member of couple (same sex or opposite sex) can make a proper reasonable, mutually beneficial and flexible deal before going in a/any relation. The breach of that "Contract" will amount to be a punishable fault.

There's no use or necessity for the so-called legitimacy or illlegitimacy of a relation, a "Contract: made on mutual consent between two independent people is however legitimately deserving protection and respect from each of them and all of the society too.

I denounce the system of marriage! And I assert the importance of the "contract" between two free adult citizens(same sex or opposite sex) on their own accord. Government or social law bodies has nothing to say or do about it. On the other hand, it is duty of the government and law bodies to save the importance and the individual interests of the couple based on that mutually beneficial "Contract".

[voxelectronica]

First and for most I would like to say that no matter what you (the collective you) and I discuss back and forth about the constitution, the law, the history of this country or what form of government we do or don't have it will not change the fact that people who get paid to do this have gone back and forth and as of yet there hasn't been a valid legal argument.

I'm not going to say these people are smarter than us or better educated because I just don't believe that. They do however more time than I to go back and forth.


Fair enough - but also a red herring: this isn't about "being with" anyone, it's about getting government endorsement of and special treatment because of a relationship. I don't believe couples should be entitled to different tax status because of their relationship, whatever the genders involved.

This particular statement is the one that I find the most correct.

I don't understand how people can agree with this in any form and then attempt to make an argument *for* marriage.

[Thorne]

I believe the basic problem with this whole idea is the fact that the large majority of people equate the term "marriage" with sexual intercourse. So let's, for the sake of argument, relegate the term "marriage" to the religious dust bin, and redefine the joining of two or more people into a private financial and emotional relationship as a civil union. No ceremony required, no limitations on sex or numbers, no religious connotations at all. Basically, the same kind of thing which happens when corporations merge, a legal bonding of the group for mutually beneficial reasons.

Any heterosexual couple wanting to be married, whether in a religious environment or not, is required by law to get a license. This license makes their union a legal one, whether they go through the ceremony or not. As such, they are entitled to certain benefits, including health care and taxes, which the law permits such unions.

As voxelectronica has pointed out, the government has no business in our bedrooms. If the members of such a civil union enjoy sexual relations, it is their business, only. If they happen to be members of a religious community and that community opposes their actions, that community has the right to bar them from the community. They do not have the right to dissolve their union, except as a prerequisite for membership in said community.

Regardless of how you want to interpret the Constitution, US law permits such unions between a man and a woman. Denying this to a couple simply because they happen to have the same type of genitalia is absurd. This is a business decision, not a medical one. By the same token, if two men and a woman want to form a union, or two women and a man, or ten women and a man, or even ten men with one woman, the government should have no legal grounds to forbid such a union. (I can't seem to find, among religious groups which permit polygamy, any that allow one woman to have many husbands. It always seems to involve one man with many wives. Interesting. Another thread, perhaps.)

In a perfect world.

And to voxelectronica: it may be true that the Constitution does not specify marriage as a fundamental right. But neither does it "permit" the use of CD players, cell phones or disposable diapers. What's important is that the Constitution does not prohibit these things.

[thepast]

Ok, on this I think we can all agree: None of you are Constitutional scholars. I have dabbled in Constitutional Law here & there, but I can reassure you that NONE of you are reading the Constitution "correctly." Why? Because welcome to our biggest issue as a country: Our US Constitution is constantly being fought over by formalists v. functionalists: is it a document that should be confined to it's 4 borders & read most literally word by word, or is it a living document that should reflect us as a society & the changes we make over the course of time. This is an issue that Constitutional Law Scholars debate as issue after issue that wasn't "written into" the Constitution appears on the forefront of the political arena. It also is an argument that comes up even when it's regarding an issue that IS written into the Constitution--you would be surprised at how vague our little document truely is.

My point is this: Rather then argue about the Constitution, which, unless I am mistaken none of you are experts in, why not just keep to the topic & discuss the notion of Marriage.

Just FYI, marriage itself isn't written in as a fundamental right in the Constitution. However, it has been understood that over time, our judiciary (specifically the US Supreme Court) has interpreted some things to be "undersood" to be fundamental rights or liberty interests. These include the right to marry, the right to raise your children, etc. etc.

And a second FYI, the 14th Amendment is generally considered "the states" amendment--it takes the Constitution & makes it applicable to the states--it's a federalism issue.


Just my two cents since I have been reading the thread from the start.

[On a side note, I would also encourage folks to debate the ISSUES, not eachother... This is a good thread, let's not have it hijacked by personal opinions being interpreted as fact...]

[hopperboo]

Should same sex marrige be legalized? No.

Should it be recognized but not given the title "marrige." Some kind of union with the same kind of security marriages off should be offered, yes.

Or should it be disallowed alltogether? Termed "marriage?" Yes.

Or should it remain indivdual state's decisions? No.

[mkemse]

Seems to me that the United States FEderal Governent has to masny other importnt things to worry about and eal with then Same Sex Marriages, leave it as a States Rights, no a Federal issue, the WArs, The Economy ect are far more important to deal withthe if "Joe & John" or Linda & Sherry" get married, we a a nation spend more wasted time on issues the i have ever seen, I want Alernative Fuel Sources, Developd, I want the Ecpnomy Fixed, I want the Tropps Brought Home, I DO NOT want the Federal Goverment spening my Taxpayer money (at least right now) spening weeks debating if 2 people of the same same can "marry" just mot an important enough issure right now for my Taxpayer monet to be spend on
The Government has to Pritoritise what it has to get done, I am concnered that Gas may go back up to $2.50 a galon or more, that OIl could go up over $100 a barrel again, that I may have to decide to I pay for Food or do I buy my Mediction, Can I afford,
If 2 memberso f the samesex want to marry, if it make them happy let them marry, let them be, it has no direct effect on my life andwhat 2 consneting aldults do in the privacy of their own domain is NOBODIES busines but their own, no the govenrnent be itState or Federal nosig in on what people want
And the Constutions (State & Federal) were not created to define marriage, there were created to establish law of the land or each state and same sex marriage to me sinply is not an imortant enough issue to me to Ammend ANY Constition, to many other more important things on the stove No i am not an expert on this,just my opinion

[awakening2]

Wonder what the fuss is about...couple of years back I read a news that in an Indian (South Asia) village a girl was married to a dog and village elders supervised it...some time early this year another news appeared that an American lady formally sought permission from the owner of a Dolphin and formally married the dolphin in Israel...black and whites...or same sex is all human to human thing...here r the things gone much advanced (liberal or broadminded!)...may be it is time to move over...let every one do what they want to do...and let them be happy ... wish could add to it "as long as they don't make some one unhappy", but the reality will remain that some one will be, if not many. So who's right we should protect? What should be done? Create media movements, street demonstrations? Till the unhappy world acknowledges that all living beings have equal rights? anyone can marry anyone?...I feel not comfortable with such debates as I consider such media as a force to, a subtle but more deadly and effective then the brute force (both can result the same…brute force can force some one to do something which s/he was unwilling to do, media force can also do the same, rather in the later case the media has taken away even the resistance / reasoning power of the one who eventual did that s/he was never interested in doing at the first place! Why to change any one’s view by force? I have my own views and I have lot of respect for them for they have developed overtime with ground research. Similarly, I have respect for others for they have all their reasons for their views. They have the right to reject mine as I have the right to reject theirs, but that should be the limit. No force. Differences become conflicts when force is involved, and it hurts. It is time to live with harmony, accept differences and try and avoid to be on the same place if can’t live with it. If children, parents, friends or partners decide to do something that breaks their ‘former’ loved ones, well the ‘loved ones’ need to learn their new position in the eyes of their children or parents or partners - choice is now with them either to accept ‘new position allocated to them and remain in the circle or reject and move on and continue with their own circle without the parents, children, concerned friends or partners. Amputation is painful, but sometimes it is the only solution to live on, so be it!

And yes I agree, it is better to invest time in things which are of more significance to a society or a nation or the world, then two individuals...

[Lisais mine]

you know, I'm a minister. (okay, I'm also pagan) I feel that the government has no right at all to control marriage. it is a religous matter, better left to your priest. if your faith say you can't be gay, then you can't be gay in that faith. if it says you have to eat blueberry muffins each morning or go to hell, you better eat your fucking muffins!!!

keep the gov't out of religion and religion out of gov't, I say. BTW- if anyone is interested in same sex marriage, I live in virginia and close to maryland- I'll marry you. fuck the laws, because they are unconstutional.

[mkemse]

you know, I'm a minister. (okay, I'm also pagan) I feel that the government has no right at all to control marriage. it is a religous matter, better left to your priest. if your faith say you can't be gay, then you can't be gay in that faith. if it says you have to eat blueberry muffins each morning or go to hell, you better eat your fucking muffins!!!

keep the gov't out of religion and religion out of gov't, I say. BTW- if anyone is interested in same sex marriage, I live in virginia and close to maryland- I'll marry you. fuck the laws, because they are unconstutional.


I agree with you, but the reality is as long as the "Religious Right" is invoved in Politics Goverment will always be involved in matters like this
Because the "Christian Conservatives" will always have imput through the Republican Party, they will support the Party and do what ever is need to get their agenda passed, whether this continues to a lesser degree in Jan after the Dems take more control of Congress is yet to be seen
But it seems ot me and this is only an opinion, that the "Chrisitan Conservatives" have a strangle hold on the Republican Party, it is the Parties base, and they need to decide if they wish to continue with this base or move on
The other issue is Proposition 8 is being challenged in California, those ho oppse it and want same sex marriage to remain legal, contend and I agree that this is a State Contitutional issue and that voters themselves do not have the authority to simply propose some and change the law passedo n that, It has to be changed by a Consitution State Ammendment by State Legislators and not just by a Proposition of the voters as was done, they are saying the Propostion is unconstitutional for this reason

[denuseri]

Please keep in mind historically it was not the "religious right" who started the governments involvement in issues conserning marriage.

Also please try to remember that even though the Republicans are ussually painted by thier opponents as being against such things as Gay rights, or Same Sex Marrige or basically (pro-religion) and the Democrats are ussually painted as being for such things as Socialism, or Disarmament of the population and or (pro athiest), that these are mainly stereotypical archtypes used for election purposes.

Look at all the promises Clinton made to the Gay Community during his initial bid for the White House and then turned around and broke like so much lip service.

Also please keep in mind that proponents of same sex marrige exist in both parties.

Gay, Straight, or otherwise. No political party has a monopoly on sexual prefference or religion despite what the media or fear mongering dogmatic spin doctors wish for you to think.

[mkemse]

No all i am saying is that the base of the Repulican Party is the Religious Right, and that Propostion 8 upon Court Review i believee an I am not a layer will be found illehal withthe Court saying the Consitutionhas to bne Ammened to the Proposition that it can't simply be placed on a ballot as it was, this is the contention of those taking court action, only the Legislature of a State can Ammmend the Contiition, ans that can't be done with a simple Propostion as it was don,e I need to be placed on a Ballot and askedi f the People of the State of ,... wantto Ammned the Consitution to Bar Same Sex Marriage, rather then just placing ino n the Ballott,
I read it had to be done as a Ammmendment and not just as a Proposition as it was,

[mkemse]

i know both paries are like tat, but it seems to be a know fact that the Religious Right control the Republicans more then they do the Democroatic, yes both side have the same issue but the base of the Republican Party is/was the Religious Right and not the base of the Democratic Party

[Oak]

In my little corner of the world, it's fully legal to be married with one of the same sex. It even can be done in a church. If the clergyman is open minded enough. It's not called marriage though. But registered partnership. It gives the same rights as a marriage.

[mkemse]

The US iso nly 200 years behins the rest of the world on these type things

[gagged_Louise]

Check out this Commerical...

This short ad from Björn Borg (yep, the tennis legend who has since established a brand in underwear and sports clothing) is quite beautiful, and a thought-provoking kind of statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPSfjReeC_k (it can also be seen as quicktime video on www.bjornborg.com/en/ ). Will begin running on tv in Sweden next week - hope it appears in the States soon, Texas needs to see this! :)

[rsjankowski]

i find it a struggle to anaswer this for me as i want people to be happy with whomever they want to be with or how many. i'm a religious man and although i know that the religious implications are wanting to be avoided in such a subject or conversation. it will be bound to come up as if it wasn't there then no one would ever have the problem of asking this question, it would be given that everyone do whatever they please.

but since there are so many people who want standards (this goes for both religious and non religious peooples) and peope who want to evangalyze for the souls and upkeep the morals there will be arguments and people who will either want or fall outside those standards. hence the stuggle for people to do whats right.

as a christian, it's acording to the bible, that it's against god's will. now not to start an argument on religion lets keep with the subject questioned. this is a poll and i'm expressing my opinion. love me or hate me, but i do hope you all love me, females only please. well maybe someday. woohoo. but as a question. i struggle with this question from many angles. so not to make this a longer message than necessary as i can probably drone on for a lot longer if asked. as a christian all things are possible for us but not all things are beneficial for us. same sex marriage in my struggling opinion is a no no even if some of my friends are. i may not like what they have done, but that doesn't mean i love them anyless. i love my friends regardless of the situations. and i wish much happiness for everyone. specialy the ones that have made it to these forums.

don't know what else to say but if anyone has a question i'll be glad to answer them
thanks for listening(reading my opinion)
robert

[denuseri]

The US iso nly 200 years behins the rest of the world on these type things


Please that couldnt be farther from the truth.

An betrays a certian level of "Euro-centric" thinking.

The majority of the counries in the WORLD, don't even condone entertaining the very idea of sexual contact between same sex partners let alone the practice of same sex marrige.

[js207]

The US iso nly 200 years behins the rest of the world on these type things

I really, really hope that's an attempt at a joke. In reality, by allowing gay marriage at all (in MA, for example) the US is far AHEAD of almost every other country in this respect - only a handful of other countries permit it, all introduced since 2001 when the Netherlands became the first. Ludicrous hyperbole like "200 years behind" really don't help your cause, mkemse.

[mkemse]

I really, really hope that's an attempt at a joke. In reality, by allowing gay marriage at all (in MA, for example) the US is far AHEAD of almost every other country in this respect - only a handful of other countries permit it, all introduced since 2001 when the Netherlands became the first. Ludicrous hyperbole like "200 years behind" really don't help your cause, mkemse.

It was also in regard to anything Sexual, on say on TV, RAdio, Magazines some states in the Uniuted STate have laws the do not allow the sale of PLayboy or Penhouse, alot of souther states have Blue Blues were are very much out of date, that prohibit the sale of ANY adult material and when it comes to adult films they have to rent/sell cable versions

I mean sexual attitudes in gneneral in the United States are way outdated not just Same Sex Marriage, my aplogies for not being clearer

look at other nation and see where they are sexual then look at the Unites States, no jstgay marriage, but TV commercials ect ect we lag way behind

[SauvagePouline]

I was reading this, and wanted to find out how far behind we are, and did a quick google search. I found this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

Looks like we are behind a lot of european countries. :(

[mkemse]

also, my apologies fo hickjacking the thread 1 or 2 posts ago

[lucy]

I was reading this, and wanted to find out how far behind we are, and did a quick google search. I found this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

Looks like we are behind a lot of european countries. :(
Switzerland also has a registered partnership for same sex couples which gives them equal rights except the right of adoption. The law was approved by 58% of the voters in 2006. Several provinces had such regulations before, most were approved in public votings, some with up to 70% majorities.

[mkemse]

I was reading this, and wanted to find out how far behind we are, and did a quick google search. I found this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

Looks like we are behind a lot of european countries. :(

Thank you, my point exaclty, when it comes to sexuatiy we are behind alot fo the world, way behind

[DemianHawthorne]

Probably an unpopular belief but in my opinion, there should be no such thing as government marriage. As far as the government is concerned, everyone (straights and gays) should have civil unions and depending on your personal beliefs and ceremony, you can call it whatever you want. Most homosexual couples in civil unions will call their partner their spouse or husband of wife just like any married couple and many of them will have wedding ceremony as well. To me that is the most fair system for all.

[Euryleia]

I think that the constitutional argument (that marriage isn't mentioned in the document) is misleading. The government is more than that single document. It is hundreds of thousands of other laws and the Internal Revenue service, the Social Security Administration and other entities that define marriage so that gay couples are unable to access the benefits that their tax dollars pay for. Those include paying taxes jointly, the inheritance of joint property, to survivorship, veterans and pension benefits, to joint parenting, hospital visitation, to spousal exemptions, to bereavement and sick leave, to domestic violence protection orders, judicial protections and immunity, and to any of the other 1049 federal and 400 state legal rights conferred on married couples.

GAO listing of 1049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor. (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)

I don't want your religious marriage. I want the rights, privileges and benefits that my taxes support. There is no legal or ethical reason why I should be a second class citizen. That's what the fight is about. Liberty and justice for all.

[mkemse]

I think that the constitutional argument (that marriage isn't mentioned in the document) is misleading. The government is more than that single document. It is hundreds of thousands of other laws and the Internal Revenue service, the Social Security Administration and other entities that define marriage so that gay couples are unable to access the benefits that their tax dollars pay for. Those include paying taxes jointly, the inheritance of joint property, to survivorship, veterans and pension benefits, to joint parenting, hospital visitation, to spousal exemptions, to bereavement and sick leave, to domestic violence protection orders, judicial protections and immunity, and to any of the other 1049 federal and 400 state legal rights conferred on married couples.

GAO listing of 1049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor. (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)

I don't want your religious marriage. I want the rights, privileges and benefits that my taxes support. There is no legal or ethical reason why I should be a second class citizen. That's what the fight is about. Liberty and justice for all.

Could not agree more, thank you

[Duke Cador]

I believe marriage is historically and socially the union of a man and woman for the purpose of producing offspring and procreation. So gay unions does not meet this definition. But as most agree nobody should be denied the right to be with who they want and to have some way to demonstrate their commitment to each other. I voted therefore for Yes but dont call it marriage. A lot of the problems regarding gay marriage centre around the rights and privileges that come with marriage. And this invariably means money. These are simple to address in my mind. Rights of inheritance (for example) or property should be the same. Tax breaks for the purpose of rearing children should then depend on having children (adopted or otherwise). Marriage is just a word and as another poster pointed out the word itself seems to be the problem rather than the concept. Change the words and the problem goes.

[Chillye]

Gay marriage is most probably the biggest threat facing America today, if you discount the increase of arson, assault, blackmail, bribery, burglary, child abuse, conspiracy, forgery, fraud, genocide, homicide, kidnapping, mugging, murder, rape, robbery, smuggling, treason, and trespassing that is.
Because banning gay marriage is primarily based on their lack of being able to procreate, I suggest a decree (or someday, an amendment, maybe) that states that straight couples that are married will be required to have children within X amount of years. After all, this is to protect the children.
And we shall call this movement, the one against the gays, “War of the Lavenders”, and those historically savvy will have a good laugh at the pun on the "War of the Roses".
In the wise words of Stephen Colbert “Consider this: who, other than terrorists, wants to destroy our [America's] way of life? The Gays. Allowing them [the gays] to marry would be like strapping on a suicide vest with a matching cummerbund”.

[denuseri]

"The Supreme Court has refused to block the District of Columbia's gay marriage law, freeing the city to issue its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Opponents of gay marriage in the nation's capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing the licenses on Wednesday while they appealed. They argued that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments.

"It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern," said Roberts, writing for the court.

He also pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop the city government from putting the law into effect and didn't.

Opponents have also asked city courts to allow a voter referendum on gay marriage, and they "will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time," Roberts said.

The Stand4MarriageDC Coalition, which tried to get a vote on the issue, said Tuesday it was disappointed in the court's ruling. It said it would continue to work for this effort among voters who believe in traditional marriage.

The city has said Wednesday probably will be the first day same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows.

Same-sex marriages are also legal in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont."

Additonally I heard on the news today while on the way to school that wedding bells are a ringing in DC this morning.

It may take some time, but I think its going to happen, legislatures everywhere are having to face the facts, five states now approve and DC!

[denuseri]

Just figured I would bump this one since Ive seen some recent intrest in the forums.

[IAN 2411]

I am not sure what all the fuss is about, Gay's in the UK are allowed to be married and I believe in church. Same sex Marraiges are also allowed to adopt children, and undergo the same tests as hetrosexuals. I have to admit I was a little uncomfortable with the latter a few years ago, but this is 2011 and life can only keep changing. We all have to run with it or be left behind with the other dinosaurs. The Idea that it would be the end of society and life is just a joke.

Be wall IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I am not sure what all the fuss is about, Gay's in the UK are allowed to be married and I believe in church. Same sex Marraiges are also allowed to adopt children, and undergo the same tests as hetrosexuals. I have to admit I was a little uncomfortable with the latter a few years ago, but this is 2011 and life can only keep changing. We all have to run with it or be left behind with the other dinosaurs. The Idea that it would be the end of society and life is just a joke.
Once again, we in the States can learn from our British cousins.

I'm assuming that those marriages in Church do not include, for example, Roman Catholic or Islamic, among others? Many faiths absolutely forbid such a thing, and while I may not agree with religious thought, I don't believe the state has a right to mandate how Churches perform their rites, or who the Churches can allow into their community. Public opinion would eventually force changes, I think, but in the US at least the law should not.

[Ozme52]

Once again, we in the States can learn from our British cousins.

LMAO!! You mean toss out all the prudes, aka Puritans, Pilgrims, and other religious fanatics, and send them to the colonies?

Ian, this is the point I was going to make in response to your question regarding "all the fuss". The USA was mostly founded by Europe's religious outcasts (imo.) It's just plain ridiculous here, everyone wants to tell, and control, how everyone else must live. So we are slow as a nation when it comes to "acceptance" of differences. It's my own personal major "fear" that the religious right might take over and further erode our basic rights, especially the right to live under a non-theocratic government.

Think about it in terms of what we tolerate from our politicians v. yours. You titter over, but basically ignore sex scandals from your politicians... but discover a case of corruption and graft and watch out!! That politician is DONE!! (or at least that's my perception.)

Here? We practically oust anyone who even admits to having sex for pleasure... and tolerate all kinds of graft, especially from those who kowtow to the religious right. It drives me crazy.

[Ozme52]

One more point... to describe how shamefully we treat this issue.

Here in California last year, we had an Initiative that banned same-sex marriage (after our State Supreme Court declared other statues banning it illegal.) It was passed (and is again going through the court system,) in part due to out-of-state funding by various religious groups including apparently, the Church of Latter Day Saints in Utah.

In that same election, another Initiative passed protecting the rights of chickens to have certain cage-size minimums. We fucking seem to care more for food animals than we do for human beings.

[Thorne]

LMAO!! You mean toss out all the prudes, aka Puritans, Pilgrims, and other religious fanatics, and send them to the colonies?
Yep! Toss them out! Since we have no colonies, anywhere past the 3-mile limit will do. With all their belongings strapped to their feet. Then the rest of us can enjoy sex without them yammering at us all the time.

[IAN 2411]

What about Elton John, it was his sperm and a seregate mother, so he and his boyfreind have sorted out the peservation of life as we know it. I wonder what all these puritans are thinking about that, the child is living in a two parent family? I might add that in most cases here in the UK two parents of any lawful type [Gay is lawful] and a happy envioronment is all that is needed to secure adoption.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

New York governor signs gay marriage into law

By Mariano Andrade | AFP – 6 hours ago

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill legalizing gay marriage, delivering a powerful victory for gay rights advocates in one of the most populous and influential states of the union.
Gay rights activists chanted and danced in the streets of New York city as news spread that the Republican-controlled state senate had narrowly approved the "Marriage Equality Act."
Cuomo signed the measure, which will take effect in 30 days, into law just before midnight Friday (0400 GMT).
Cheers erupted in the senate galleries in the state capital Albany when the legislators voted 33-29 to approve the measure after weeks of intense wrangling. The 29 Democratic senators were joined by four Republicans, one more than the minimum needed to get the bill approved.
Cuomo, who had lobbied hard for the measure, beamed after it was approved.
"Democracy works when the people speak. And the people spoke in volumes over these past few months. And this legislature responded this week to their calls," Cuomo said at a press conference soon after the vote.
"What we accomplished this evening with marriage equality really in some ways brings it all home. Because this state, when it is at its finest, is a beacon for social justice," he said.
The Democratic-majority lower house, the state assembly, approved a similar gay marriage bill on June 14, and later ratified the changes made by the senate.
The measure's approval coincides with the beginning of an annual weekend event celebrating gay pride in New York, which culminates with a giant parade on Sunday.
In Albany activists supporting and opposing the measure chanted, sang and waved placards, packing the senate galleries and demonstrated inside and outside the building.
Marc Grisanti, one of the Republican senators who voted for the measure in Albany, agonized over his vote.
"I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage," Grisanti said as he was about to vote. And yet, "I cannot deny a person, a human being... the same rights I have with my wife," he said.
The Republican-dominated senate had rejected a similar bill in December 2009, and its approval Friday was uncertain leading up to the vote.
New York state lawmakers, who should have recessed late Monday, had been in drawn-out negotiations in an extraordinary session to put the final touches on the bill's language designed to address legal protections for religious organizations.
New York is the third most populous US state after California and Texas, and will become the sixth state to approve gay marriage after Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont.
Hawaii, California, Nevada, Oregon and New Jersey, as well as the US capital Washington, offer civil unions to same-sex couples, but not marriage rights.
A March poll found that a 53 percent majority of Americans are in favour of allowing gay marriage.
The New York Civil Liberties Union applauded the approval. "This historic, bipartisan vote is a victory for families and a victory for human rights. Now, all loving couples in our state can enjoy the dignity, respect and legal rights that marriage provides," said the group's executive director Donna Lieberman.
The Log Cabin Republicans, a group representing gay members of the Republican Party, congratulated the party members that voted in favour of the bill.
"Republicans in the New York state senate stood up for true conservative values: individual liberty, personal freedom and equal rights for all, and we thank them for voting on the right side of history," said Gregory Angelo, the head of the group's New York state chapter.
...............................

As i said in my post ealier go with the flow or be a dinosaur.


Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

KRISTIN M. HALL - Associated Press had this to report today:

A lesbian couple is asking for changes at Dollywood after an employee asked one of the women to turn her T-shirt reading "marriage is so gay" inside-out to avoid offending others on a recent visit to the Tennessee theme park complex. Olivier Odom and Jennifer Tipton said Tuesday they want the park to be more inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families after Odom was asked to reverse her shirt when they visited Dollywood Splash Country next to the Pigeon Forge amusement park. The story was first reported by WBIR-TV in Knoxville.
Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said on Tuesday that Dollywood is open to all families, but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.
Owens said the couple was not asked to leave and complied with the rules to reverse the shirt when asked.
"The park is open every day to everybody," Owens said. "We try to provide an environment for families of all shapes and sizes to enjoy themselves.
Owens said park officials were discussing the matter and would speak with the couple directly.
Odom said that they visited the water park July 9 with friends and their friends' two children when she was asked by a person at the front gate to turn her shirt inside out because it was a family park.
Odom said she complied so as not to make a scene in front of the children, but felt offended.
"That's what we found so offensive — that he said it was a family park," Tipton said. "Families come in a wide range of definitions these days and we were with our family."
The two said they felt they needed to file a complaint with Dollywood because they believed it was important to stand up for their beliefs in marriage equality.
"If marriage equality is going to happen, it's not going to happen if people sit at home quietly," Odom said.
Odom said they understand the park can have dress code policies, but she felt Dollywood needed to make their policies clear and provide better training for employees when determining what is considered offensive.
Odom and Tipton are not legally married, but held a ceremony last year in North Carolina. They wrote an email to the park asking the park "to implement policies that are inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; conduct staff sensitivity training; and issue a public statement indicating that the park is inclusive of all families."
Owens said the couple's complaints have sparked discussion at the park about the dress code, a policy that park employees deal with frequently because of the thousands of visitors every year.

[IAN 2411]

The park would get its ass kicked in the UK and most probably sued, that T shirt would not cause offence over here. However obscenity on a T shirt would probably get a person kicked out if they never complied with a cover it up request. I find the above very narrow minded and and that naty phraze that we have over here for controversial laws, [politacally correct.].

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

However obscenity on a T shirt would probably get a person kicked out if they never complied with a cover it up request.
So how would you define 'obscenity', then? Are you sure that others would define it the same way? After all, what you consider obscene may not be the same as something I consider obscene.

This kind of thing plays into the controversy between the rights of a business to be selective about its clientele and the rights of the individual to equal treatment under the law. Can a private business restrict the kinds of clothing worn by its customers? Even if the customer feels he has the right to wear what he wants? Many businesses will not permit people to enter without shirts, or shoes. Are they guilty of discrimination?

Personally, while I deplore the kind of mentality that would want to cover up such a shirt, I see no problem with a privately owned business having a dress code for its customers. If you don't like it, don't go there.

[IAN 2411]

I hear what your saying Thorne, but i have seen T shirts with only the words "FUCK YOU" and "CUNT" in big letters on front and back...they are statements and not for a family theme park. I am very broad minded on a lot of things but those shirts i just dont see the point. Please dont tell me that you would not be upset if you had a eight year old girl and she was asking what does it mean Daddy?

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I had to do it with my boys at somewhere close to that age. Don't know how I will react if it ever comes up with my granddaughters. Probably tell them to ask their fathers! LOL!

But those kinds of words are almost universally considered to be inappropriate for public usage. The phrase "Marriage is so Gay" is only offensive to bigots. And even then it relies on a rather limited definition of the word 'gay'. I've been married (heterosexually) for close to 40 years and there have been some gay times, and not-so-gay times. And they rarely had anything to do with sex.

I would venture to guess that a theme park, or any business, who restricted the wearing of such a shirt would also go ballistic if they saw two guys wandering through holding hands. (Probably not so much with two women holding hands, unless they were being overtly sexual about it, which would also be inappropriate for any couple.) It's not like the men are doing anything wrong, but that the viewer is perceiving what they do to be wrong. Can you imagine how they would react to two guys going into the "Tunnel of Love" ride together? (Do they even HAVE Tunnels of Love rides anymore?)

[thir]

A gay family is also a family. I agree that this censorship is wrong.

[thir]

So how would you define 'obscenity', then? Are you sure that others would define it the same way? After all, what you consider obscene may not be the same as something I consider obscene.

This kind of thing plays into the controversy between the rights of a business to be selective about its clientele and the rights of the individual to equal treatment under the law. Can a private business restrict the kinds of clothing worn by its customers? Even if the customer feels he has the right to wear what he wants? Many businesses will not permit people to enter without shirts, or shoes. Are they guilty of discrimination?

Personally, while I deplore the kind of mentality that would want to cover up such a shirt, I see no problem with a privately owned business having a dress code for its customers. If you don't like it, don't go there.

I do not agree. It is not a dress code, and no one can know what their rules are until they bump into them.

You cannot logically say that it is a family park, and then tell some people not to have comments on their family on their T shirt.

[thir]

I hear what your saying Thorne, but i have seen T shirts with only the words "FUCK YOU" and "CUNT" in big letters on front and back...they are statements and not for a family theme park. I am very broad minded on a lot of things but those shirts i just dont see the point. Please dont tell me that you would not be upset if you had a eight year old girl and she was asking what does it mean Daddy?

Be well IAN 2411


I'd think she knew already - they are usually way ahead of us!

Anyway, what IS 'obscene'? Sex is not obscene. Lots of things are, though.