Congrats MA gay marriage supporters

[cardaway]

I'm not all surprised that people think having another "seperate but equal" situation is a good idea. As long as it doesn't impact them, who cares right?

I'll buy the whole defintion of marriage crap when I see equal time being put into stopping the ALL the people already doing damage to their precious defintion.

 

[Charade]

I'll buy the whole defintion of marriage crap when I see equal time being put into stopping the ALL the people already doing damage to their precious defintion.

I really doubt you would.

Besides, gays are getting divorced already in Mass. One of them was just 5 days after the law passed.

 

[cardaway]

I really doubt you would.

Besides, gays are getting divorced already in Mass. One of them was just 5 days after the law passed.

Believe what you want, but I'm right there with anybody else who wants to speak out about those really doing damage to the defintion of marriage. Gay or straight, it's a joke to get married and then end it 5 days later.

That's the kind of crap people should be talking about, not trying to stop anybody who is willing to take it seriously.

 

[dcentity2000]

Gay or straight, it's a joke to get married and then end it 5 days later.

Totally agreed. Didn't Britney Spears do something like that?



Rich::

 

[goofy4tink]

I'm arriving to this discussion late, but here none the less. This is how I see it all (and yes, I'm from Ma).....
allowing gays to marry does not really impact me at all. Live and let live. Way back when, marriage was for procreation, pretty basically. At least according to the Bible. So....nowadays, we have plenty of people (straight) getting married with no plans whatsoever to have children. They are still allowed to marry. We have many,many gay friends, as well as members of our family. It horrifies me to think that if one of those partners were injured, the other partner could legally be denied access to their loved one in the hospital. Or that a committed, loving person, at the death of their 'partner' could possibly be left to deal with the deceased partner's family...a family that has never accepted the relationship, and therefor just takes everything away from the remaining person...everything of the deceased loved ones possesions. Farfetched? Not as farfetched as you may think.

Marriage is not the sole 'property' of the church, not by a long shot. I belong to the Episcopalian church. We have an openly gay bishop....that's a whole other kettle of fish, let's not even go down that road!! Our particular church has had several gay or lesbian couples at any given time...it has not been any issue whatsoever. But, in our church, they can not be married...the priest (rector) is not allowed to preside over a marriage ceremony, it's against the rules. So, a JP performs the ceremony, outside the church. No biggie. So, what happens to those who do not believe in God? What happens to those men and women who do not share our beliefs? Obviously they still get married, but not in a church. It's about time we start remembering that although this country was formed around Christian belief, it no longer is the 'only' religion or belief out there. There is no reason that a couple should not be able to be married by a JP in a non-religious ceremony. The churches should be able to decide what they want to be able to do...the state does not tell the church what they are able to do.
If a gay couple wishes to marry, in a civil ceremony, how is it harming anyone else? No one if telling me that I have to marry a lesbian for crying out loud. My family is just fine, my marriage is not in danger of breaking down, my family values are just fine, thank-you very much.
There are a lot worse things to worry about in this day and age than two men, or two women getting married. Isn't there enough violence already? Why add more...live and let live. No one is in any danger from gays and lesbians being able to be legally together, and entitiled to all the same thing everyone else has. No, it is not a choice. For crying out loud, does anyone think that someone would make a conscious decision to be gay/lesbian the way the world is today?? Why in God's name would someone choose to be shunned, made fun of, and ostracized??! Nope, it's nature my friends, not a choice.
Time to put ignorance aside, time to be a bit more accepting of others. Time to feel less threatened by something a little bit different. Let the state give some equality...let the churches decide what they want to do...it's two very different things here. Church vs state. I guess it really is a civil union if you want to be completely technical. But, as long as the same rights are conferred, then fine, I don't care what you call it. Of course, I may get a different answer when I ask the two gay couples coming over for dinner next week. Have to ask them if they feel there is a huge difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage'....both were married in this state within the past year. Both couples have been together for about 20 years...yep, both of them. Longer than most of my straight friends, including me!!

 

[Fitswimmer]

Lets see here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=21099

For the love of God-NOBODY has called anyone a bigot or a homophobe or any of the other terms referenced in your little cut and paste.

You can hate homosexuality with all the energy you have, you can stand on streetcorners with a bullhorn and preach about it 7 days a week. NOBODY is denying you ANYTHING-except the power to control the lives of your fellow citizens and force them to live under your personal moral code.

 

[declansdad]

For the love of God-NOBODY has called anyone a bigot or a homophobe or any of the other terms referenced in your little cut and paste.

You can hate homosexuality with all the energy you have, you can stand on streetcorners with a bullhorn and preach about it 7 days a week. NOBODY is denying you ANYTHING-except the power to control the lives of your fellow citizens and force them to live under your personal moral code.

Well said!

 

[eclectics]

For the love of God-NOBODY has called anyone a bigot or a homophobe or any of the other terms referenced in your little cut and paste.

You can hate homosexuality with all the energy you have, you can stand on streetcorners with a bullhorn and preach about it 7 days a week. NOBODY is denying you ANYTHING-except the power to control the lives of your fellow citizens and force them to live under your personal moral code.

Not worth expending energy....if you know what I mean.

 

[BlessedMomOfTwo]

Charade,

I understand your point about the tradition of marriage... I believe that the importance of the tradition of marriage is what it means to my dh and I. It is about the vows we spoke to each other and the commitments we made to each other. No one else's relationship defines ours, either positively or negatively.

I think to solve the problem we need to have separate acts/processes for marriage. I believe we should change it to ALL couples (heterosexual or gay)having a civil union which covers their relationship in the law type aspects. Then we would have an equal playing field there.

Then if couples chooses to also have a marriage ceremony, they could do so. That may or may not involve a church, but it may be a way for the couple to more celebrate their commitment to each other in a more meaningful way. Churches could still choose whether or not they would perform gay marriages.

Would that be acceptable to you, Charade? If you aren't against civil unions for gays, would you be against everyone having a civil union and the ability to then have a marriage ceremony in addition to it? Would that still allow you to hold onto your traditional desires about marriage?

While I support this idea of civil unions for all as a way to ensure equality, I personally don't feel it is necessary. If one has a belief that traditional marriage is just for a man and a woman, then one surely can honor that by not choosing to marry someone of the same gender. I want all couples who choose to commit themselves to each other to have the same opportunities as I do.

Carol

 

[Boston5602]

I just want to mention if we let the people vote and we ACTUALLY counted that vote G. W. Bush would NOT be President !

I think it can all be summed up by words from a straight co-worker...." Gay marriage has been legal here for 4 years ? " hmmmmm I think that says volumes.

His marriage to his wife is still as loving and strong as it was before Gay marriage !!!



I love the quote by Mitt Romney " Marriage has always been defined as between 1 man and 1 woman ! " This coming from a Mormon !!!!! I love flip flop romney!!!

 

[Augustine]

For the love of God-NOBODY has called anyone a bigot or a homophobe or any of the other terms referenced in your little cut and paste.

You can hate homosexuality with all the energy you have, you can stand on streetcorners with a bullhorn and preach about it 7 days a week. NOBODY is denying you ANYTHING-except the power to control the lives of your fellow citizens and force them to live under your personal moral code.

There is exactly what I am talking about. Because I disagree with gay marriage then you say that I hate homosexuality. In your mind you dont understand there is a difference. But pro-gay marriage supporters want to demonize those that oppose gay marriage. They want to make it illegal to speak against homosexuality. They want to make it a hate crime. All to silence people against gay marriage. They dont mind taking away other's freedom of speech in order to get what they desire because to them the ends justify the means. There are gay-marriage supporters out there that do want to DENY gay marriage critics from speaking against gay marriage.

Again, it is not an either/or matter. Just because I am against gay marriage does not mean I expect my fellow citizens to live under my "personal moral code" as you put it. But again, you want to paint me with that brush and say that my opposing gay marriage equates to people following my moral code.

And please, dont insult me by saying no one on the Dis has ever called someone who speaks against gay marriage a bigot or a homophobe. It happens all the time.

And tell me again, how exactly are you being affected personally by gay people not being allowed to marry? How has your life been affected in al your years here on earth that gays cant marry one another?

 

[fabshelly]

There is exactly what I am talking about. Because I disagree with gay marriage then you say that I hate homosexuality. In your mind you dont understand there is a difference. But pro-gay marriage supporters want to demonize those that oppose gay marriage. They want to make it illegal to speak against homosexuality. They want to make it a hate crime. All to silence people against gay marriage. They dont mind taking away other's freedom of speech in order to get what they desire because to them the ends justify the means. There are gay-marriage supporters out there that do want to DENY gay marriage critics from speaking against gay marriage.

Again, it is not an either/or matter. Just because I am against gay marriage does not mean I expect my fellow citizens to live under my "personal moral code" as you put it. But again, you want to paint me with that brush and say that my opposing gay marriage equates to people following my moral code.

And please, dont insult me by saying no one on the Dis has ever called someone who speaks against gay marriage a bigot or a homophobe. It happens all the time.

And tell me again, how exactly are you being affected personally by gay people not being allowed to marry? How has your life been affected in al your years here on earth that gays cant marry one another?

The exact same way yours would be affected if Gay people ran the country and made a law saying that you couldn't marry your spouse, but could only marry a person of the same gender.

It's pretty easy to understand, actually.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

That's what I don't get. For some people, like yourself, it just boils down to semantics and tradition. You resent the word "Marriage" being used in any other scenario than the traditional one. Is the word really that important?

My husband does. Well, he doesn't resent it, he FEARS it. He is an atheist who did not marry in a church, but he strongly feels that marriage should not be redefined as other than a civil union between a man and a woman. He thinks it's some underhanded political plot to start changing legal definitions left and right and undermine our freedoms. Did I mention that he is a conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is out to get us (not that I totally disagree, but...)?
That said, he thinks gays should be allowed to form civil unions and have all the same rights of marriages. I used the "separate but equal" argument on him, but in his case he really doesn't trust the government to mess with anything at all, and it has nothing to do with denying gays the right to "marry". He thinks gays should have the same rights to suffer the financial and emotional bonds of marriage as the rest of us (just not to call it a marriage, I guess? ). Which is, although I love my husband and normally consider him to be brilliant and insightful, STUPID.
I did mention the adoption issue, and asked how he'd handle that under his crazy dual version of marriage/civil unionization (hee hee) and he said he'd make it legal for any appropriate adult approved by the other (sole custodial) parent to adopt the child(ren). Which would open a whole new can of worms!

But his heart is in the right place.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

I'm arriving to this discussion late, but here none the less. This is how I see it all (and yes, I'm from Ma).....
allowing gays to marry does not really impact me at all. Live and let live. Way back when, marriage was for procreation, pretty basically. At least according to the Bible. So....nowadays, we have plenty of people (straight) getting married with no plans whatsoever to have children. They are still allowed to marry. We have many,many gay friends, as well as members of our family. It horrifies me to think that if one of those partners were injured, the other partner could legally be denied access to their loved one in the hospital. Or that a committed, loving person, at the death of their 'partner' could possibly be left to deal with the deceased partner's family...a family that has never accepted the relationship, and therefor just takes everything away from the remaining person...everything of the deceased loved ones possesions. Farfetched? Not as farfetched as you may think.

Marriage is not the sole 'property' of the church, not by a long shot. I belong to the Episcopalian church. We have an openly gay bishop....that's a whole other kettle of fish, let's not even go down that road!! Our particular church has had several gay or lesbian couples at any given time...it has not been any issue whatsoever. But, in our church, they can not be married...the priest (rector) is not allowed to preside over a marriage ceremony, it's against the rules. So, a JP performs the ceremony, outside the church. No biggie. So, what happens to those who do not believe in God? What happens to those men and women who do not share our beliefs? Obviously they still get married, but not in a church. It's about time we start remembering that although this country was formed around Christian belief, it no longer is the 'only' religion or belief out there. There is no reason that a couple should not be able to be married by a JP in a non-religious ceremony. The churches should be able to decide what they want to be able to do...the state does not tell the church what they are able to do.
If a gay couple wishes to marry, in a civil ceremony, how is it harming anyone else? No one if telling me that I have to marry a lesbian for crying out loud. My family is just fine, my marriage is not in danger of breaking down, my family values are just fine, thank-you very much.
There are a lot worse things to worry about in this day and age than two men, or two women getting married. Isn't there enough violence already? Why add more...live and let live. No one is in any danger from gays and lesbians being able to be legally together, and entitiled to all the same thing everyone else has. No, it is not a choice. For crying out loud, does anyone think that someone would make a conscious decision to be gay/lesbian the way the world is today?? Why in God's name would someone choose to be shunned, made fun of, and ostracized??! Nope, it's nature my friends, not a choice.
Time to put ignorance aside, time to be a bit more accepting of others. Time to feel less threatened by something a little bit different. Let the state give some equality...let the churches decide what they want to do...it's two very different things here. Church vs state. I guess it really is a civil union if you want to be completely technical. But, as long as the same rights are conferred, then fine, I don't care what you call it. Of course, I may get a different answer when I ask the two gay couples coming over for dinner next week. Have to ask them if they feel there is a huge difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage'....both were married in this state within the past year. Both couples have been together for about 20 years...yep, both of them. Longer than most of my straight friends, including me!!

Fantastic post!

 

[TinkerbellMama]

I can only answer for myself. If you and another man were to be considered married by the state, it would IMO, do away with hundreds of years of tradition where a marriage was between one man and one woman. That's what I consider a marriage to be. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs (I consider myself an agnositic now but was raised Catholic), bigotry or a desire to see anyone denied happiness. But as usual, people who believe like I do are frequently labled as bigots, homophobes or close minded. As much as I find "relations" between two men distastful (whether they're gay, bi or straight) on a personal level, I do not let that influence my feelings toward a gay person *as* a person. There are many other things that would make me like or dislike a person. Sexual orientation isn't one of them.

I'm all for any couple (two men or two women or one man/one woman) having the same rights as married couples in regards to medical, financial, property and child custody rights. These "rights" should be afforded to any couple (that's TWO, not any more than that). What's interesting is laws that allow same sex domestic partners to have some of these rights require them to demostrate commitment but they do not require that of opposite sex couples. I could marry the next woman I see walking down the street and *poof*, all those rights are granted. IMO this is wrong. I've stated that before.


Again, I consider a marriage between one man and one woman. A husband and a wife. Not two husbands or two wives. I suppose in my case it's really just a case of semantics. I'm OK with the term civil unions for gay couples but not marriage.

Honey, did you get an account on the DIS and not tell me?
(Sorry...you could be my husband with this post.)

 

[kelleigh1]

I think it can all be summed up by words from a straight co-worker...." Gay marriage has been legal here for 4 years ? " hmmmmm I think that says volumes.

Actually, only 3 years. The only reason I know is that my husband I got married in June 2004 and remember that it was just a few weeks before, in May 2004 when it became legal and the first same-sex marriages took place. My husband and I both agreed that we thought it was about time that everyone had the same rights that we did and that it was ironic that it happened right before our wedding.

 

[salmoneous]

it would IMO, do away with hundreds of years of tradition where a marriage was between one man and one woman.

However, the question was, how does it affect you and your life. The changing of tradition doesn't affect you in any way. It would help others; it wouldn't affect you in any way. Seems like something worth supporting.

I am curious - if you feel so strongly about keeping traditional definitions of marriages - how to you feel about the changes that have helped straight people. Are you upset that women are no longer the chattel of their husbands?

And if you aren't opposed to changes to marriage that have helped straight people, why are your opposed to changes to marriage that would help gay people? What do you think drives your acceptance of change that helps straights, but doesn't allow you to accept change that helps gays?

 

[Charade]

However, the question was, how does it affect you and your life. The changing of tradition doesn't affect you in any way. It would help others; it wouldn't affect you in any way. Seems like something worth supporting.

I am curious - if you feel so strongly about keeping traditional definitions of marriages - how to you feel about the changes that have helped straight people. Are you upset that women are no longer the chattel of their husbands?

And if you aren't opposed to changes to marriage that have helped straight people, why are your opposed to changes to marriage that would help gay people? What do you think drives your acceptance of change that helps straights, but doesn't allow you to accept change that helps gays?

How does defining a marriage as between one man and one woman (a husband and a wife, not two wives or two husbands) hurt gay couples if the law allows (and I've stated it should) them to have the same medical, financial and child custody rights as do heterosexual couples?

If a gay couple is emotionally hurt by the fact that I consider a marriage in those terms, I'm sorry. But redefining it hurts me the same way. So call it what you want. I can't stop it but I don't have go along with it.

"Separate but equal" was tossed about a few times in this thread. Guess what. A gay couple is different than a straight couple but that doesn't mean the law should treat them differently.

 

[eclectics]

How does defining a marriage as between one man and one woman (a husband and a wife, not two wives or two husbands) hurt gay couples if the law allows (and I've stated it should) them to have the same medical, financial and child custody rights as do heterosexual couples?

If a gay couple is emotionally hurt by the fact that I consider a marriage in those terms, I'm sorry. But redefining it hurts me the same way. So call it what you want. I can't stop it but I don't have go along with it.

"Separate but equal" was tossed about a few times in this thread. Guess what. A gay couple is different than a straight couple but that doesn't mean the law should treat them differently.

Yes, the law shouldn't treat them any differently, but it does. And the word Marriage comes into the picture on a few levels. How about when you file federal taxes and there is the "married" box staring at you and the tax break you will get by checking it. Gay "union" just doesn't cut it in that particular instance as the gay union couple can't legally check that box but a straight married couple can. And that's just one example. The word Married is a legal term as much as it is an emotional one.

 

[cardaway]

I'm still not all surprised that people think having another "seperate but equal" situation is a good idea. As long as it doesn't impact them, who cares right?