Marrige, same sex only?

[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.

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.

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.