Who won't settle for anything less than legal?

[iankh]

Ok, maybe I'm stirring things up a bit:stir:, but why not?

Hisselfness and I have been together for 19 years this year. We have no desire to have a committment ceremony, not unless we get all of the legal trappings that come with marriage.

Now perhaps we feel this way because we're in our 50's and are just a couple of bitter old queens, errr, I mean bitter old men.

I mean, let's face it, 19 years we've stayed together and it hasn't been because of the children.

Don't get me wrong, if we could get legally hitched, we'd be first in line to stand under a chuppah (canopy) and stamp on a couple of glasses and stuff ourselves silly on chopped liver and vodka martinis and dance the hurra until we drop.

So, I was wondering if there were any other couples out there who might feel the same way we do. Or is it just that the passage of time has made us too miserable for words?

[buckylarue]

I've been waiting almost 29 years for my partner to make an honest man out of me! :teeth: We may go to Canada and get hitched for our 30th anniversary if we can swing it; we have some friends in BC that have offered to throw us a wedding (and if things get much more repressive around here, we might just apply for asylum!)

[Rence]

My partner and I have also decided against any sort of commitment ceremony. We will get hitched when it is lega where we reside, whether it be marriage, domestic partner, civil union, whatever. We have also elected to not consider going someplace where marriage is legal to get married since it would not be recognized back home and it thus in our minds rather pointless.

I did some research on this and there can be potential problems if you get married elsewhere and it is not recognized where you reside. I strongly recommend that you research the subject carefully before proceeding. An obvious issue is divorce. Many places that allow same sex marriage will allow a couple to be married with a very short residency period but have a much longer residency period for divorce. You can't be divorced back home because your marriage isn't reocognized and you may have to relocate for up to six months to get a divorce where you were married. With a partially recognized but not really recognized marriage you are in sort of a legal limbo where you are sort of married but sort of not. I just recommend that you look at all the ramifications before making a decision. We decided it is not right for us, but it may be right for others.

[sandraB]

The title of the thread caught my eye on the main page of the Dis discussion forum....

I live in Canada, and am a straight female.

I listened to some politicians the other day talk about the same sex marriage debate up here...and one of them (who was straight btw), said in response to the statement that most canadians are against same sex marriage..

"In canada, we do not let the majority decide the human rights of a minority group"

I was really struck by that thought...and was proud to be CANADIAN.

I hope that we can move beyond debate, and decide to treat ALL people with the dignity and respect we all deserve.

Just a thought.....

[bubie2.5]

we do not let the majority decide the human rights of a minority group

Powerful words.

[RickinNYC]

Joe and I have decided to go the commitment ceremony route until recently we chose to wait until it's legal. We've been together for 15 years, much, much longer than any of our heterosexual friends. In fact, some of those folks are separated or getting divorces. Yet we're going strong.

So much for the sanctity of marriage eh?

[ChrizJen]

Good thread...
Jen and I have been together almost 8 years, and have not done an official ceremony. We attended a mass commiment ceremony at Pride a couple of years ago, and we have a certificate. But as far as a "wedding" with all of our family and friends, I whole-heartedly agree that it would not be a "real wedding" unless it was legally recognized.
We have friends who had an elaborate, expensive wedding and reception last year, and I understand their reasoning. They say that, legal or not, they needed to ceremony to show their family and friends the level of commitment they have for each other. But I think that my family and friends know the level to which Jen and I are commited to one another, and I don't think we need a ceremony to show them. Like iankh said, we have more love for each other than most of the heterosexual couples we know, we just need to have that love recognized legally. Although sadly I don't see it happening any time soon, I would certainly be in line alongside the rest of you if it did become legal.

and SandraB...Thank you for your comments. :thumbsup2
We need politicians and representatives here who think like that! Too many are about taking their own conservative religious beliefs and shoving them down other peoples' throats. They don't care about minority or majority. Their only concern is in taking rights away from people and making laws out of their close-minded biggoted religious beliefs.
-Christal

[donald...really]

We waited until it was legal. We were LEGALLY married here in Massachusetts this past July on the 10th anniversary of the day we met.

We had a very small and simple ceremony in Provincetown. We were married in the front yard of the Justice of the Peace, under a tree, near a brook, about an hour before sunset. The only guests were two friends of ours that joined us for the weekend. We always considered ourselves "married" so the ceremony wasn't that big of a deal to us, UNTIL I got to the part where I had to repeat the words "I take you, to be my LAWFULLY wedded spouse..." It was then that I realized the importance of it all.

It was worth waiting for.

I just got an email from HRC stating nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that GLBT relationships deserve legal protection. That is very encouraging.

[ChrizJen]

We waited until it was legal. We were LEGALLY married here in Massachusetts this past July on the 10th anniversary of the day we met.

We had a very small and simple ceremony in Provincetown. We were married in the front yard of the Justice of the Peace, under a tree, near a brook, about an hour before sunset. The only guests were two friends of ours that joined us for the weekend. We always considered ourselves "married" so the ceremony wasn't that big of a deal to us, UNTIL I got to the part where I had to repeat the words "I take you, to be my LAWFULLY wedded spouse..." It was then that I realized the importance of it all.

It was worth waiting for.

I just got an email from HRC stating nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that GLBT relationships deserve legal protection. That is very encouraging.


That sounds lovely!!! Now if only the rest of the states could join Mass. and make it legal! We've discussed it, and like someone else said, it makes no sense to go someplace (Canada or Mass.) to get married if when you come back to wherever you're from and it's no longer recognized.

We're are looking into options of where to relocate permanently. See, we're starting the process of conceiving a baby. I will be the bio mom, which will mean that Jen will have to second-parent adopt. Well, here in Missouri, our wonderful governor Matt Blunt is taking steps to make same-sex second parent adoption illegal. And even if we were to get the adoption finallized before the law took effect, he's making it so that it will no longer be recognized. We have frends who adopted a baby boy from Guatemala almost 3 years ago. The one did the first adoption, and then his partner did the second parent adoption right after. So now if this law passes, the partner who did the second-parent adoption will have no rights to his child. He will be told that if anything happened to his partner, not only will he not be able to visit him in the hospital, but he will also lose his son. So we're all looking into moving someplace together. (not literally together, but so that we all live within close proximity to one-another) We cannot stay here if these laws are passed.

Anyway, I'm sorry I went off into a rant, I just get emotional about these things...

Thanks...
-Christal

[ECurto]

We had a ceremony. I was more for us, or me. It was always my dream. Kirk felt it didn’t mean anything legal so it was just like a big party. Here in NY we are legally domestic partners. We had to file for it at the court. We had to do it so I could be under his insurance. (Although every time i go to the doctor the FULL AMOUNT is considered and added to his taxes as income) It was odd, kinda like getting married at the courthouse. Other then insurance there is no other reason or benefit to it. But you do get a nice certificate. lol I long for the day we have the same rights as everyone else. I just dont think we need to fight for "marriage" since "marriage" is a religious thing. I dont care what its called, so long as we have the same rights. I know our day will come. Hopefully soon if Hillary wins, or not with this newest Supreme Court Judge.

P.s. You can see some of our ceremony pics here... and i will posting more in the "Ceremony" thread in this board tonight.

Our Ceremony (http://www.floen.com/ericandkirk/wedding.htm)

Post where the rest of the pics are (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1012258)

[iankh]

That sounds lovely!!! Now if only the rest of the states could join Mass. and make it legal! We've discussed it, and like someone else said, it makes no sense to go someplace (Canada or Mass.) to get married if when you come back to wherever you're from and it's no longer recognized.

We're are looking into options of where to relocate permanently. See, we're starting the process of conceiving a baby. I will be the bio mom, which will mean that Jen will have to second-parent adopt. Well, here in Missouri, our wonderful governor Matt Blunt is taking steps to make same-sex second parent adoption illegal. And even if we were to get the adoption finallized before the law took effect, he's making it so that it will no longer be recognized. We have frends who adopted a baby boy from Guatemala almost 3 years ago. The one did the first adoption, and then his partner did the second parent adoption right after. So now if this law passes, the partner who did the second-parent adoption will have no rights to his child. He will be told that if anything happened to his partner, not only will he not be able to visit him in the hospital, but he will also lose his son. So we're all looking into moving someplace together. (not literally together, but so that we all live within close proximity to one-another) We cannot stay here if these laws are passed.

Anyway, I'm sorry I went off into a rant, I just get emotional about these things...

Thanks...
-Christal

I could get really really riled up.

OK, so here I'm going to go again, as the elder gay statesman. I have to preface that I just turned 50 in August and that I grew up in NY (well Brooklyn) came out when I was 17 years old, immediately getting involved in my college gay group and going to meetings at GAA (Gay Activists Alliance). This is all just to put what I am going to say in perspecive ...


I remember when NY couldn't pass a gay rights law because that would mean that there would have to be gay firemen and policemen .... everyone knew that neither of these could possibly function if there were gay people on the forces and there were fears that fires would be put out and that crime would rise because the police force would fall apart.


I remember when gays and lesbians were considered emotional deficient because homosexuals could never possibly form long lasting loving relationships


I remember when gays and lesbians couldn't be given their rights because they flitted around and could never settle down and be stable


I remember when gays and lesbians could not be given security clearances because they were subject to blackmail because they could lose their jobs if exposed because they were not protected by laws that the majority refused to pass and therefore a I setup to be victims


I remember lots and lots of looking glass logic
Funny, we were damned when we didn't have relationships and now we're damned because we want to get married.

It seems like the looking glass logic is still with us.

[ECurto]

I remember when NY couldn't pass a gay rights law because that would mean that there would have to be gay firemen and policemen .... everyone knew that neither of these could possibly function if there were gay people on the forces and there were fears that fires would be put out and that crime would rise because the police force would fall apart.


Funny now the NYPD has commericals specificaly targeting gay people to join the NYPD.

[donald...really]

Ecurto,

Marriage doesn't have to be religious. Gays and Lesbians are fighting for CIVIL Marriage, which means married in the eyes of the state, mostly for legal protections. Gays and Lesbians are not fighting for religious marriage. No religion would be required to perform a same-sex marriage even if same-sex marriage were to become legal in all 50 states.

[ECurto]

Ecurto,

Marriage doesn't have to be religious. Gays and Lesbians are fighting for CIVIL Marriage, which means married in the eyes of the state, mostly for legal protections. Gays and Lesbians are not fighting for religious marriage. No religion would be required to perform a same-sex marriage even if same-sex marriage were to become legal in all 50 states.

Correct but "marriage" is a religious term. That word is why our president feels the need to create an amendment to stop us from the "religious act of marriage which in religion in between a man and a women". In my opinion, we need to not fight for "marriage" but for equal rights which would come out of a ceremony not called a "marriage". This word is where we all get tripped up. Thats just my opinion. If other homosexuals want to be married for religious reason I fully support that too.

[JennyMominRI]

Correct but "marriage" is a religious term. That word is why our president feels the need to create an amendment to stop us from the "religious act of marriage which in religion in between a man and a women". In my opinion, we need to not fight for "marriage" but for equal rights which would come out of a ceremony not called a "marriage". This word is where we all get tripped up. Thats just my opinion. If other homosexuals want to be married for religious reason I fully support that too.
It's not a religious term.. That may be the claim of some people who are religious but marriage is esentially a civil contract between 2 people. Sometimes it's also blessed by a religion. Sometimes its not..Civil Marriages have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years..In the US a couple can have a civil marriage and not have a religious one..On the other hand,if you go to your temple and get married by a Rabbi,but don't get a Marriage license from the state,you are not married legally. Now,I don't believe the state has any right to say who can and cannot enter into a legal contract with someone else. .Churches have a right to refuse to perform a ceremony they don't agree with.. There are plenty on Non-religious people who want to be married.. Making marriage religious only will deny athiests and agnostics the right to marry

[Costumesaremylife]

To all the folks waiting to get married. I only hope that you get what you wish. Nothing is greater than happily married couples.

[ECurto]

It's not a religious term.. That may be the claim of some people who are religious but marriage is esentially a civil contract between 2 people. Sometimes it's also blessed by a religion. Sometimes its not..Civil Marriages have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years..In the US a couple can have a civil marriage and not have a religious one..On the other hand,if you go to your temple and get married by a Rabbi,but don't get a Marriage license from the state,you are not married legally. Now,I don't believe the state has any right to say who can and cannot enter into a legal contract with someone else. .Churches have a right to refuse to perform a ceremony they don't agree with.. There are plenty on Non-religious people who want to be married.. Making marriage religious only will deny athiests and agnostics the right to marry

Hey Jenny,

Glad that other thread is closed. I just wanted to clear up what I meant for you. I wasnt speaking about what jewish believe "about shelfish". That was a cathloic reference. And when i said it was a health guide, i mean alot of things in the bible were written to keep people healthy. Such as "dont eat shellfish". It was also my belief this was the same in judism with no meat and cheese together...and b/c of the health issue involved of that time. This is what i learned when going for my masters in psyc. But maybe I am wrong.

[JennyMominRI]

Hey Jenny,

Glad that other thread is closed. I just wanted to clear up what I meant for you. I wasnt speaking about what jewish believe "about shelfish". That was a cathloic reference. And when i said it was a health guide, i mean alot of things in the bible were written to keep people healthy. Such as "dont eat shellfish". It was also my belief this was the same in judism with no meat and cheese together...and b/c of the health issue involved of that time. This is what i learned when going for my masters in psyc. But maybe I am wrong.


It's different but the thing you need to realize is that most of the time,the bible is taught with a Christian slant..It's to be expected when the majority of people in the US are Christian.. Kosher laws are for the most part about respect for life,all life not just human life. When you eat meat you eat an animal . It died to be on your table .Kosher laws help to restrict the amount of meat you eat.. It also helps to turn the mundane act of eating into something holy. It turns you table into an Altar. Animals must be killed in what was/is considered a quick and less painful way.. Regarding meat and dairy.This comes from a verse in the bible about not cooking a calf in his mothers milk..IT would be cruel to an animal to cook it's young in the milk that is meant to nurture it..You are right. Things have changed. Most people don't farm anymore and aren't going to cook a calf in it's mother milk, But the moral issues brought up in Kosher laws are still important. Christianity has deemed Kosher laws,among other things as uneccessary..One way of doing this is by taking Kosher laws,which ARE moral laws and turning them into something else..Something that's no longer valid like food safety issues.. It's to bad..There was no need to change the meaning or reasoning for Kosher laws,as non-Jews were never expected to follow them in the first place.

[ECurto]

Thank you for clearing that up. See we learn something new everyday. :)

[ECurto]

Well here is proff of what we all face everyday.

"joeyrulesall says:

I read all the new posts not by section , just by clicking new posts. I dont
care what he does privatley im just sickened that he has to pick a childrens
theme park to marry a man. I believe in protecting children from sick things ,
not stirring!"

Atleast the mods over on the wedding board cleared it up. It just makes me sick. Atleast we have friends on the other boards looking out for us!

[JennyMominRI]

Well here is proff of what we all face everyday.

"joeyrulesall says:

I read all the new posts not by section , just by clicking new posts. I dont
care what he does privatley im just sickened that he has to pick a childrens
theme park to marry a man. I believe in protecting children from sick things ,
not stirring!"

Atleast the mods over on the wedding board cleared it up. It just makes me sick. Atleast we have friends on the other boards looking out for us!
And this is why Separate But Equal,IE. civil unions not marriage is
unnacceptable...GWB and his ilk don't get to claim marriage for the religious only,or the morally acceptable .You deserve the SAME rights as everyone else,and not a separate drinking fountain..Civil Unions give people that hate you one more thing to hold over your head and claim that they are better then you,that their relationship is somehow,better and more special than yours.

[Ziva]

P.s. You can see some of our ceremony pics here... and i will posting more in the "Ceremony" thread in this board tonight.

Our Ceremony (http://www.floen.com/ericandkirk/wedding.htm)

Post where the rest of the pics are (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1012258)

Beautiful pics, your both just gorgeous. Congrats on celebrating 7 years, hope you have many more together! :)

[SeattleRedBear]

And this is why Serperate But Equal (ie, civil unions not marriage) is unnacceptable...GWB and his ilk don't get to claim marriage for the religious only,or the morally acceptable .You deserve the SAME rights as everyone else,and not a seperate drinking fountain..Civil Unions give people that hate you one more thing to hold over your head and claim that they are better then you,that their relationship is somehow,better and more special than yours.
Jenny -- Many, many thanks for these strong and articulate words. My feelings exactly.

[JennyMominRI]

Jenny -- Many, many thanks for these strong and articulate words. My feelings exactly.
Thanks :). I'm not gay but I've lived with AIDS for 15 years. As such I have seen firsthand the flat out discrimination that gay people deal with on a daily basis,and it sickens me. I have seen PWA's(people with AIDS) denied their partners as they died..I have seen a couple of them lose homes etc,because they don't have any legal protections..I've seen more than a few who died alone, because their family disowned them. I really belive the AIDS epidemic in this country is in part caused by homophobia. I was infected by my husband who is bisexual..His family tells other that he got AIDS from IV drug use..They would rather have a drug abusing son than a gay/bisexual son. It will happen to you.Some day you will have the same rights as everyone else..Some day this country will look back with shame,at the way they treated gay people,in much the same way we look back at the way we treated NA's and black people.

[Saxton]

Jenny - you are right on the mark with your posts. Separate but equal does not exist and history has proven that fact. Separate yes, but there was never any equality or the civil rights movement wouldn't have taken on such force. I can see that if the conservatives somehow would 'allow' civil unions it would be deemed a sub-standard relationship with limited rights. But realistically I doubt that it will ever happen and true marriage is just a dream. Here's something interesting that I just read from Coretta Scott King, who I believe spoke with a quiet dignity and courage:

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," Coretta Scott King said at the 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people, but I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

And I believe that one line - "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" sums it all up. She understood what discrimination was, she experienced it first hand.

Eric - great photos!!! And I read your posts on the other thread. I posted on one about a week ago but I think that whole thread was deleted (thankfully!). It always amazes how many narrow minded people there really are.

[Viki]

This June Gwen and I will be "married" twenty years, but with no ceremony to mark our committment to each other. Ironically, I've presided at well over twenty marriages, gay and straight, legal and not so much. We'll wait until it's legal where we live. In the meantime we've raised two children and three dogs.

And, btw, it's true that there is nothing inherently religious about marriage - unless you are RC, in which case it is viewed as a sacrament (a ritual religious action to which there is a specific promise attached). Luther was clear that weddings are civil matters, the rules of which are dictated by the state.

[hematite153]

For us, marriage is predominantly a religious covenant. However, the legal component of civil marriage also has numerous implications for many. (In fact, we know a straight couple who chose to marry religiously but delay the civil filing until after it had been legalized for same-sex couples as well.)

From my perspective, the GLBT community is fighting on two fronts--religious and civil. The battle for religious marriage takes place within each religion rather than through imposition from the state. Some people feel more strongly about one than the other and tend to discount the other. However, I feel that both struggles are necessary.

We were married in our Christian church (which has been performing same-sex marriages for 13 years) in Canada. The opportunity to celebrate with our friends, family, church community and to have our commitment legally recognized feels so much like a basic human right that I feel deeply for those without these choices.

(I know that many of you have decided not to travel for marriage. However, if there are lurkers who want information you are welcome to send me a pm.)

[Empare]

Weddings don't have to be religious though. I am happily married to a wonderful man. I have always been more of a pagan type of person so, that's how my wedding went. I was married outside in a beautiful meadow. My family all said quotes from some of my favorite stories, including one from winnie the pooh. ;) I am very thankful that I was able to marry the one I love. My husband's parents are VERY religious and difficult. It took them a long time to actually decide to come to the wedding! Can you believe that? They were going to miss the wedding of their only son just because we were not getting married in a church! I'm sure they would never talk to me again if they found out I was bi. I believe ALL relationships should be treated with respect and kindness.

[mrsdisneyfan]

I would like to make a comment on this thread and if it comes out wrong please forgive me. I am 35 years old, married and straight. I feel that gays not being able to legally marry is absurd.

I cannot image the feelings of some one who is in a loving relationship for 1 2 or 20 years and is told they cannot be in a hospital room with thier loved one. Not having any say in medical or financial matters just because you are gay. The thought of my MIL having a say over my husbands well being, God forbid anything ever happened to him, and me not being consulted makes me sick.

I fully support EQUAL rights when it comes to marriage and I mean the exact as any straight couple.

And if I hear the phrase "slippery slope" one more time when this is publicly discussed I think I may commit violence.

I just don't understand the people who are against this. The ones who quote the bible bother me the most. (I am a Christian.) What difference does it make to anybody except the ones getting married. Your life was no affected when I got married and my life is not going to be affected when you get married. So why does anybody feel threatened by this.

I hope every day that this injustice is fixed.

Again, if this seems like a big worthless ramble I apologize but I feel very strongly.

[ChrizJen]

Again, if this seems like a big worthless ramble I apologize but I feel very strongly.

mrsdisneyfan: Not worthless at all! It's very encouraging to know that despite what our "leaders" would have us believe, there really are straight people in our nation who support our rights! They would so like us to think that the majority of Americans are opposed to equal rights. I think that it's more the other way around in actuality. And when people like yourself speak out, it really means something!

Thanks for your comments!
-Christal

[airhead]

We didn't need a piece of paper to make that day important. Neither of us has any desire(or need) to "get legal". My philosophy is,if it ain't broke,don't fix it!

[iankh]

We didn't need a piece of paper to make that day important. Neither of us has any desire(or need) to "get legal". My philosophy is,if it ain't broke,don't fix it!

While I can certainly see your point of view, considering that I and hisselfness have been together for 19 years with out either a ceremony or a piece of paper, that piece of paper is the golden ticket to a vertibable magic kingdom of legal rights and other benefits.

[SteeleTig]

Ava and I are registered domestic partners in NYC, we have no desire for a ceremony that has no legal standing... but the second it becomes legal we will be first in line to be married.

[wallyb]

My partner Paul and I got legally "married" last summer after being together for 23 years not "Leagal"

I really wasn’t that into the idea of needing that piece of paper to justify our being a couple. After all I knew straight couples that could not of been less married and had all the trappings - religious ceremonie and all.

I think real marriage (commitment) happens in your head - and heart.
Papers don’t make it “real”. Some dude in a funny frock giving you his blessing don’t make it real.

But that said - once MA said we could married and get all the same legal rights - we decide to go for it before our governor figured a way to stop it. If Paul ever had to go into the hospital I don’t want some nurse stopping me because I’m not family.

What I did not, and still don’t understand is why we’re suppose to be fine with Civil Unions. Separate IS NOT equal.
Why would you except being less than. A marrage with a caveat.

Jenny thank for your GREAT eloquent words on this topic.

[majortom]

Hopefully soon if Hillary wins, or not with this newest Supreme Court Judge.

I just want to remind you that Hillary's husband not only did not veto the Defense of Marriage Act, nor let if become law without his signature (as most laws do), but signed it and then advertised that he had done so on Christian radio stations while running for re-election.

He also took an Executive Order banning gays and lesbians from serving in our military and made it a Federal Law (much harder to change).

I am not sure that Hillary will be that different.

Now back to our original topic:

I also have no interest in anything that is less than legal marriage. Howard Dean's Civil Unions in Vermont are essentially meaningless as there is no case to even force recognition of them under Full Faith and Credit.

This was an issue between me and my ex-Boy Friend. He felt that having a commitment ceremony was important and I did not (we broke up after seven years together over other issues).

/carmi

[majortom]

Regarding meat and dairy.This comes from a verse in the bible about not cooking a calf in his mothers milk..IT would be cruel to an animal to cook it's young in the milk that is meant to nurture it.

Your post was very accurate, with this one exception. The origin of the prohibition on mixing dairy and meat comes from a desire to separate from the pagan practices in the area. A common pagan fertility rite was to seethe a calf in its mother's milk. It was part of a number of pagan rituals that Judaism bans (homosexual temple prostitutes are another - read the verse in context and it is Leviticus is not talking about loving gay relationships).

It has always bothered me when people have tried to explain the laws of kashrut as health codes.

One way of doing this is by taking Kosher laws,which ARE moral laws and turning them into something else..Something that's no longer valid like food safety issues.. It's too bad..There was no need to change the meaning or reasoning for Kosher laws,as non-Jews were never expected to follow them in the first place.

Agreed. I will note though that among the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah (among only rules in the Hebrew bible that apply to non-Jews) is a law that covers animal cruelty (prohibits eating the flesh of a live animal).

/carmi

[iankh]

Your post was very accurate, with this one exception. The origin of the prohibition on mixing dairy and meat comes from a desire to separate from the pagan practices in the area. A common pagan fertility rite was to seethe a calf in its mother's milk. It was part of a number of pagan rituals that Judaism bans (homosexual temple prostitutes are another - read the verse in context and it is Leviticus is not talking about loving gay relationships).

It has always bothered me when people have tried to explain the laws of kashrut as health codes.



Agreed. I will note though that among the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah (among only rules in the Hebrew bible that apply to non-Jews) is a law that covers animal cruelty (prohibits eating the flesh of a live animal).

/carmi

This is probably OT, but all I have to say is WOW! And that's a "wow' of appreciation. I wouid have never expected to read something like this on these boards, and quite accurate too. The 7 commandments, haven't heard anyone refer to them since my days as a yeshiva boy!

[majortom]

This is probably OT, but all I have to say is WOW! And that's a "wow' of appreciation. I wouid have never expected to read something like this on these boards, and quite accurate too. The 7 commandments, haven't heard anyone refer to them since my days as a yeshiva boy!

Thirteen years of Solomon Schechter and six summers of Camp Ramah in Wisconsin (four as a camper, 2 as staff) and one summer of Ramah Israel Seminar, paid off.

/carmi

[bubie2.5]

I'm following the "Never getting married" thread in th CB. It's interesting that the "benefits" of marriage they mention are the same ones we've been told to "just get a lawyer to draft you something".link (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1058852)

[majortom]

I'm following the "Never getting married" thread in th CB. It's interesting that the "benefits" of marriage they mention are the same ones we've been told to "just get a lawyer to draft you something".link (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1058852)

I decided that I needed to correct a few misconceptions. Given that most of the over 1,400 benefits of marriage can be had only by marriage, I thought that some of those people needed education. :-)

/carmi

[hematite153]

I decided that I needed to correct a few misconceptions....
/carmi

:) It's always useful to have more information enter the conversation.

I'm biased, I know, but all of these discussions always lead me back to a certainty that equal marriage is essential.

After all, the hetero couples are discussing their reasons for choosing not to marry. I support their right to make decisions that are right for them and their relationships. Without equal marriage, same-sex couples cannot differentiate their choices for society.

Marriage was/is important for me, but I understand that some people make different choices. My DW was with her ex for 6+ years, they owned a house together, etc. However, they were also clear with each other that they had not made a lifetime commitment and would not have gotten married.

When my DW and I got together, I got lots of weird looks from people who figured that I was some sort of rebound relationship and that our talk of 'marriage' was odd. Yet, if they had been a straight couple that was equally clear about their lack of future, people would have been able to differentiate the two relationships. Ah well...I'm married now...and others can sort out their own decisions. (I will continue to hope for change for those who are not allowed to choose.)

[PHILCT]

What if someone suddenly decided to invalidate all MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES that were not performed by an appropriate religious sect.

That Marriage without Religion was not recognized.

In that case CIVIL MARRIAGE was on the same level as GAY MARRIAGE.
Both were intolerable to the concept of the Government's view on Non Religious Marriage.

All CIVIL Marriage Rights were disolved.

All Children born to CIVIL Marriages were deemed illegitimate.

All Marriage, Tax, Legal Perks were removed for these CIVIL Marriages.

What if Straight Couples who got CIVIL Marriages in Canada, came over the border to the United States to find their Marriage Illegal ?

----

Simply the word "Marriage" should not be owned for Religious Marriages.
Let the Religious Organizations use the adjective "RELIGIOUS" in front of the
word Marriage if they need that comfort zone.

If the government can allow CIVIL Straight MARRIAGES, it should allow CIVIL GAY MARRIAGES. Two consulting adults over 18 kind of thing !

Let the Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques decide who gets to perform RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES. But they should not control who gets a CIVIL Marriage. That is the function of the government.

It is time the government allows GAY CIVIL MARRIAGES, so that Gay Couples can have the same rights and benefits based on Marriage for Insurances, Property, Wills, Partner Death Benefits, etc. that heterosexual couples receive today.

UNION versus MARRIAGE, the difference should only offend some RELIGIOUS organizations, not the government.

---

Now if I can only find a Loving Partner to Marry, I need some of those benefits ! My Medical Insurance Premiums are killing me !

---

I think I would rather now talk more about DISNEY !

[hematite153]

What if Straight Couples who got CIVIL Marriages in Canada, came over the border to the United States to find their Marriage Illegal ?

I think I would rather now talk more about DISNEY !

Since you'd prefer to talk about disney, I'll assume that you likely won't read this. However, I wanted to correct an inaccurate assumption that seems implicit in this line.

Separating the idea of religious and civil marriage does not solve the problem of the US government not recognizing Canadian marriages.

I am Canadian and was married in a religious ceremony.

[PHILCT]

I think your marriage should be recognized universally, I am embarassed about the U.S. position on Gay Marriage denial.

I just wanted others to realize how much they take for granted their rights by their legal civil marriages today, and how would they feel if they were taken away.

[Viki]

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but my take, as a religious professional, is that most state governments are much more politically conservative than many religious communites. I've been officiating at lesbian and gay "marriages" for years. But there are very few states that can say likewise. Many people don't realize it, but built into many state constitutions are preferences for nuclear families. I predict changing that will be much harder than changing the stance of many mainline communities of faith.

Having said that, however, I should note that marriages are really best viewed as civil functions - not religious events. Outside of our RC brothers and sisters marriage is not viewed as a sacrament and it's pretty clear that many people of no particular faith persuasion marry all of the time. In my particular religious persuasion - Lutheran - Martin Luther was pretty clear that this was all the pervue of the State, not the Church.