Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[cardaway]

Honest question......

What is/would be the difference between marriage and civil unions?

JMHO (not shared by everybody that is pro gay marriage) is that it sets up a very dangerous seperate but equal situation. States weould be free to make up different rules for each and basically we would be no better off than they were without civil unions. Personally I feel a lot of people are pro civil unions because they expect that would be the case. As long as they are not called marraiges they would not have to consider them equal.

 

[Chuck S]

Honest question......

What is/would be the difference between marriage and civil unions?

That would depend upon the individual state, and the rights they define for civil unions. You see, while civil unions in most states would/could be legally equal to legal marriage...it goes back to the old "separate but equal" scenario , and we all know how well that worked out. Sort of like segregated drinking fountains, etc. Unless it is "marriage," it isn't really marriage.

 

[RickinNYC]

Yes, we all will have our say.

We all have our beliefs (religion) and we all have the right to influence society. Basing one's beliefs on God (or not) does not disqualify anyone from influencing the society that we and our children live in.

Better thru voting than judicial fiat.

What in God's name does a kicky little sports car have to do with two guys gittin' themselves hitched?

 

[Mugg Mann]

What in God's name does a kicky little sports car have to do with two guys gittin' themselves hitched?

Some people are opposed to having "four on the floor" in any form......

 

[BuckNaked]

If anyone cares, Aunt Bea had grits for breakfast.

And bacon.

Back to your normal programming.

 

[Laura]

I thought America prided itself in being the land of the free yet seems to proscribe many activities. A free society would allow an activity unless it hurt another person or impinged on their freedom.

Yes, that's very much the argument for gay marriage. There's no way to rationally state that that allowing two people who love each other to marry could hurt other people or impinge on their freedom.

I find it odd that the possession of gun is allowed when their defined purpose is to kill and harm but an expression of love is prohibited.

And before people jump up and say it is for protection can I say that we in the Uk have just about given up hope of reoccupation and governing the US.

It's not the British; it's those pesky Canadians we're afraid of.

 

[cardaway]

Some people are opposed to having "four on the floor" in any form......

 

[RickinNYC]

If anyone cares, Aunt Bea had grits for breakfast.

And bacon.

Back to your normal programming.

Aunt Bea, do NOT be surprised if a 6'4" gay guy with boy band hair comes a-knockin' at your door expecting breakfast. Throw in a couple of fried eggs and biscuits and gravy, and I'd never leave.

 

[BuckNaked]

Aunt Bea, do NOT be surprised if a 6'4" gay guy with boy band hair comes a-knockin' at your door expecting breakfast. Throw in a couple of fried eggs and biscuits and gravy, and I'd never leave.

Sausage gravy or red-eye gravy? But if you want red-eye gravy, you have to give me some advance notice so that I can go find some country ham.

 

[JunieJay]

Sausage gravy or red-eye gravy? But if you want red-eye gravy, you have to give me some advance notice so that I can go find some country ham.

Good Lord, just serve me up some risotto when I come visiting Aunt Bea.

 

[BuckNaked]

Good Lord, just serve me up some risotto when I come visiting Aunt Bea.

You should have been here last night - after writing about it yesterday, I made some for dinner.

 

[RickinNYC]

Sausage gravy or red-eye gravy? But if you want red-eye gravy, you have to give me some advance notice so that I can go find some country ham.

Sausage gravy please. And you can be a little heavy handed with the black pepper.

Man, my mouth is watering and I can't get ANY of that stuff here in NYC for the life of me. Fried eggs, yes. Good grits and biscuits and gravy, hells no. Drives me batty.

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, thought of this conversation last night when I was using making grits into a polenta style side dish with dinner. Joe and I were cackling as we plotted out next steps on our Power Point presentation, figuring out new ways to overthrow government and break up as many heterosexual marriages as possible.

Good times!

 

[BuckNaked]

Sausage gravy please. And you can be a little heavy handed with the black pepper.

Man, my mouth is watering and I can't get ANY of that stuff here in NYC for the life of me. Fried eggs, yes. Good grits and biscuits and gravy, hells no. Drives me batty.

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, thought of this conversation last night when I was using making grits into a polenta style side dish with dinner. Joe and I were cackling as we plotted out next steps on our Power Point presentation, figuring out new ways to overthrow government and break up as many heterosexual marriages as possible.

Good times!

You aren't permitted to break up my marriage unless you find a suitable replacement. I'll PM you with qualifications and salary requirements later today.

 

[RickinNYC]

You aren't permitted to break up my marriage unless you find a suitable replacement. I'll PM you with qualifications and salary requirements later today.

Note to self: When one has a really bad cold, bordering on flu like symptoms, do NOT ever laugh through one's nose.

Add to grocery list: Kleenex

 

[Luv'sTink]

That would depend upon the individual state, and the rights they define for civil unions. You see, while civil unions in most states would/could be legally equal to legal marriage...it goes back to the old "separate but equal" scenario , and we all know how well that worked out. Sort of like segregated drinking fountains, etc. Unless it is "marriage," it isn't really marriage.

Thanks.

I was wondering where the term came from but I did a search and understand it better, probably what I should have done to begin with!

 

[Fitswimmer]

That would depend upon the individual state, and the rights they define for civil unions. You see, while civil unions in most states would/could be legally equal to legal marriage...it goes back to the old "separate but equal" scenario , and we all know how well that worked out. Sort of like segregated drinking fountains, etc. Unless it is "marriage," it isn't really marriage.

I don't see why we can't have "civil marriage" and "sacred marriage". The individual Church would have final say over who gets a "sacred marriage" and if that Church was ok marrying gay couples then so be it, but the state could not force a Church to marry gay couples. No discrimination lawsuits or anything. The state would have the control over who gets a "civil marriage".

Would that still be separate but equal?

 

[cardaway]

I don't see why we can't have "civil marriage" and "sacred marriage". The individual Church would have final say over who gets a "sacred marriage" and if that Church was ok marrying gay couples then so be it, but the state could not force a Church to marry gay couples. No discrimination lawsuits or anything. The state would have the control over who gets a "civil marriage".

Would that still be separate but equal?

The problem comes form the fact that church weddings are already treated differently. There is no reason to believe the same thing wouldn't happen if there we were to extend civil marriages to homosexuals.

Currently the differences are minor (who is allowed to preside over marriages and other trivial issues) but I expect that would change if some groups wanted to make sure one group of marriages were kept separate or not recognize them as equal.

 

[LuvDuke]

Some people are opposed to having "four on the floor" in any form......

Oh my ...................

 

[LuvDuke]

I don't see why we can't have "civil marriage" and "sacred marriage". The individual Church would have final say over who gets a "sacred marriage" and if that Church was ok marrying gay couples then so be it, but the state could not force a Church to marry gay couples. No discrimination lawsuits or anything. The state would have the control over who gets a "civil marriage".

Would that still be separate but equal?

The state can't force a church to marry anyone now. Basically, every marriage in this country is civil marriage as the Church ceremony carries no weight when it comes to family law.

 

[BuckNaked]

The problem comes form the fact that church weddings are already treated differently. There is no reason to believe the same thing wouldn't happen if there we were to extend civil marriages to homosexuals.

Currently the differences are minor (who is allowed to preside over marriages and other trivial issues) but I expect that would change if some groups wanted to make sure one group of marriages were kept separate or not recognize them as equal.

Legally, I'm not aware of any differences between a church marriage and JP marriage. So long as the religious officiant has the license or whatever required to perform the marriage (as mine did), it is just as legal as a JP marriage.

What I would see happening if we went to civil marriages, would be that EVERYONE that wanted to have a valid, legal marriage would have to be married by a civil official, such as a JP. Those also wanting a religious "marriage" could have one in a church, but the church ceremony would have no bearing whatsoever on the legality of the union.

So for example, as a Catholic, my church would not recognize the civil ceremony as a sacrement, but I could obtain the sacrament by having a Catholic wedding in a Catholic church. My Catholic church would not perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but the Methodist church down the street might. Those that only care about or need the legal marriage would simply choose to forego the religious ceremony, and those that wish to have the religious ceremony could have it, but without the civil ceremony, it would not be a legal marriage.