New Gay California Gay Marriage Campaign

[kingLouiethe1]

I saw this commercial last nite for the first time and I loved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG7ddWLF_Fk

 

[rpmdfw]

I just posted this on my planning thread, but thought I'd share it here, too.

I loved it.

 

[zulemara]

LOL! very good!

I just read that latest polls show 51% oppose the amendment and 42% support it. That's good!

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I'm actually against gay "marriage". I do believe in civil unions, but with a twist.

I think all unions between two individuals, whether they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple should be a civil unions. If one chooses to have their civil union overseen by a church, the civil union would gain an additional aspect of also being called a marriage, however in the eyes of the law, the marriage aspect offers no additional protections, risks or benefits outside of the church.

 

[rpmdfw]

I'm actually against gay "marriage". I do believe in civil unions, but with a twist.

I think all unions between two individuals, whether they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple should be a civil unions. If one chooses to have their civil union overseen by a church, the civil union would gain an additional aspect of also being called a marriage, however in the eyes of the law, the marriage aspect offers no additional protections, risks or benefits outside of the church.

Ah. Semantics. Equal rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law is what we're after. Whether that's called "Marraige", "Civil Union", or "Ping Pong Table", doesn't matter to me.

 

[Mackey Mouse]

I have been married to the same man for 39 years.........I would invite anyone to be as happily married as I and do not care who they are or who they love....why not?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Ah. Semantics. Equal rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law is what we're after. Whether that's called "Marraige", "Civil Union", or "Ping Pong Table", doesn't matter to me.

You're right it is just semantics, but it does solve the problem with people declaring the sanctity of marriage as the reason that homosexuals cannot marry. Let them keep their marriage and whatever it provides them in their church of worship, but give civil unions to all.

 

[rpmdfw]

You're right it is just semantics, but it does solve the problem with people declaring the sanctity of marriage as the reason that homosexuals cannot marry. Let them keep their marriage and whatever it provides them in their church of worship, but give civil unions to all.

But you'll NEVER get the "No one gets a legeal marraige" thing to pass. It's better to pick a fight thta can win. If people in California and Massachusetts are willing to give us the same rights and responsibilities, declare victory and move on to the next states willing to do so.

Trying to overhaul how our entire society views legal marraige versus church marraige is just asking for trouble and setting the entire package in jeopardy.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

But you'll NEVER get the "No one gets a legeal marraige" thing to pass. It's better to pick a fight thta can win. If people in California and Massachusetts are willing to give us the same rights and responsibilities, declare victory and move on to the next states willing to do so.

Trying to overhaul how our entire society views legal marraige versus church marraige is just asking for trouble and setting the entire package in jeopardy.

I don't think so, and it would be signifigantly easier to re-write the laws all at once with a sweeping amendment that said something on the order of, where "marriage" is referenced, marriage is deemed to be a civil union.

But again, people can have different opinions as well. You're really not changing a view per se, rather you are just implementing that a civil union is recognized by law and that by default all marriages are also civil unions.

Also, even if I could marry my partner, I don't think I would. We have other legal methods to ensure proper transfer of assets already in place (and paid for), and we've both discussed the lack of need to marry one another (we've been together 7 years). So also might not be the best advocate.

 

[OrlandoMike]

We have other legal methods to ensure proper transfer of assets already in place (and paid for)

But why should we have to get a lawyer and "pay" for something when others can just go to the JOP and get it relatively free?

 

[rpmdfw]

But why should we have to get a lawyer and "pay" for something when others can just go to the JOP and get it relatively free?

Especially when what the lawyer can do can "come close" but not actually reach a state of actual equal protection under the law.

"Separate but equal" doesn't work. Never did. And we're not even that far along. We're "separate and second class citizens" as it stands now.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

But why should we have to get a lawyer and "pay" for something when others can just go to the JOP and get it relatively free?

What is relatively free is really not much less then paying for the legal side. Marriage/Civil Unions also come with their own headaches as well, so for us, we choose to not pursue the option, but more power to those that do.

I wasn't saying that others shouldn't have the option available to them either, it is just maybe we're attacking this from the wrong angle. Sometimes, it is hard to see other options that may on the surface seem like a long shot, but may actually work better.

 

[OrlandoMike]

Sorry, but I wont stop fighting till I have the right to hop on a plane, fly to Vegas, get hitched "no questions asked", wake up with a hangover, and get divorced the next day, just like my straight pals.

I wont settle for a civil union, or anything less!

Not asking any church to sanction my marriage, just demanding that the government give me the opportunity to do what every heterosexual has the right to do on a daily basis.

 

[kingLouiethe1]

LOL! very good!

I just read that latest polls show 51% oppose the amendment and 42% support it. That's good!

Now we just have to get that 51% to get out and vote! The problem is a lot of that 42 % is older and they have very little to do while waiting to die, so voting for them is at least a break in the routine . . .

I'm actually against gay "marriage". I do believe in civil unions, but with a twist.

I think all unions between two individuals, whether they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple should be a civil unions. If one chooses to have their civil union overseen by a church, the civil union would gain an additional aspect of also being called a marriage, however in the eyes of the law, the marriage aspect offers no additional protections, risks or benefits outside of the church.

I am completely with you on this. Isn't this what England does now?

If people want to play that game, then the government should completely get out of the marriage business, it's our government too and I'm paying a hell of a lot of money in taxes.

In Mexico, which is a very Catholic country they distinguish a lot between marriage and civil marriage, and not always in a good way. People love to gossip, so someone might say "Are those two people living together married yet?" and someone will reply "only civilly."

I have one aunt coming to the wedding from Mexico, and she had the cojones to never get married either by the church or the state, and that was 30 years ago. That's why she's so supportive of me doing what I want and being happy

 

[kingLouiethe1]

Especially when what the lawyer can do can "come close" but not actually reach a state of actual equal protection under the law.

"Separate but equal" doesn't work. Never did. And we're not even that far along. We're "separate and second class citizens" as it stands now.

Yay, we're not second class citizens in California! as long as we never leave the state....
or want to file a federal tax return . . .
or we get divorced and I fall in love with a handsome Spaniard and I want him to come live here with me . . .
Or I get the urge to join the military and die and my husband needs the military to offer emotional support...

But other than that, everything is hunky dory! Hey, did u guys know Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian now? She so crazy

 

[RickinNYC]

Also, even if I could marry my partner, I don't think I would. We have other legal methods to ensure proper transfer of assets already in place (and paid for), and we've both discussed the lack of need to marry one another (we've been together 7 years). So also might not be the best advocate.

I really have to say that this stance, in my own personal opinion, is a cop out and catering to the biased folks in this country. I've been together for almost 18 years with my own partner and we're registered in NYC as domestic partners so our rights are currently protected. But the minute we step foot outside the city limits, we have absolutely zero.

I'd also suggest you look more closely into your legal paperwork. There are plenty of gay/lebian couples who have done the same thing you have, but when one of the partners have died or were put on life support, their legal documents were worthless.

 

[Rence]

I'm actually against gay "marriage". I do believe in civil unions, but with a twist.

I think all unions between two individuals, whether they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple should be a civil unions. If one chooses to have their civil union overseen by a church, the civil union would gain an additional aspect of also being called a marriage, however in the eyes of the law, the marriage aspect offers no additional protections, risks or benefits outside of the church.

This is EXACTLY what currently exists - except for the calling it Civil Unions part. There are two forms of marriage currently in the country.

There is civil marriage - this is the state recognized marriage. A couple can choose to get married in front of a Judge or a Justice of the Peace. This marriage is recognized legally but has no religious standing, unless a church later chooses to recognize it.

The second is religious marriage. A church can choose what couples they want to marry and what couples they don't. A church today does not have to marry an interracial couple, a couple who is not a member of the church, a couple where one person is divorced etc. etc. A couple can be married by a member of the clergy and this will be recognized by the church, but not necessarily by the state. A number of churches will perform same-sex marriages in states where same-sex marriages are not legal. The marriage is recognized by the church, but not the state.

Now most marriages that take place in this country are both. We have vested the clergy with the right to perform the civil ceremony simultaneously with the religious ceremony. So most couples who get married get their civil marriage and their religious marriage done all at once. And this has lead to the confusion.

I think the key is to emphasize that these are two different concepts and that a church will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. The California ruling only applies to civil marriage.

The Catholics, the Mormons and others are pushing for the ban. I think an effective advertisement might be to ask how many same-sex marriages have the Catholics, the Mormons and others been forced to perform in Massachusetts and California. The answer is of course none. This ruling has no impact whatsoever on a church's ability to determine who may or may not be married in the eyes of the church.

So you see, what you are proposing is exactly what currently exists in California and Massachusetts, except rather than marriage and civil unions, they are both called marriage.

 

[zulemara]

I'm actually against gay "marriage". I do believe in civil unions, but with a twist.

I think all unions between two individuals, whether they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple should be a civil unions. If one chooses to have their civil union overseen by a church, the civil union would gain an additional aspect of also being called a marriage, however in the eyes of the law, the marriage aspect offers no additional protections, risks or benefits outside of the church.

I have been preaching that same thing via facebook and wherever the debate comes up. It's nice to see someone who holds the same views

Ah. Semantics. Equal rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law is what we're after. Whether that's called "Marraige", "Civil Union", or "Ping Pong Table", doesn't matter to me.

agreed

But you'll NEVER get the "No one gets a legeal marraige" thing to pass. It's better to pick a fight thta can win. If people in California and Massachusetts are willing to give us the same rights and responsibilities, declare victory and move on to the next states willing to do so.

Trying to overhaul how our entire society views legal marraige versus church marraige is just asking for trouble and setting the entire package in jeopardy.

good point, but I still think it would ultimately make most people happy except the ones who want to protect "the institution of marriage"

This is EXACTLY what currently exists - except for the calling it Civil Unions part. There are two forms of marriage currently in the country.

There is civil marriage - this is the state recognized marriage. A couple can choose to get married in front of a Judge or a Justice of the Peace. This marriage is recognized legally but has no religious standing, unless a church later chooses to recognize it.

The second is religious marriage. A church can choose what couples they want to marry and what couples they don't. A church today does not have to marry an interracial couple, a couple who is not a member of the church, a couple where one person is divorced etc. etc. A couple can be married by a member of the clergy and this will be recognized by the church, but not necessarily by the state. A number of churches will perform same-sex marriages in states where same-sex marriages are not legal. The marriage is recognized by the church, but not the state.

Now most marriages that take place in this country are both. We have vested the clergy with the right to perform the civil ceremony simultaneously with the religious ceremony. So most couples who get married get their civil marriage and their religious marriage done all at once. And this has lead to the confusion.

I think the key is to emphasize that these are two different concepts and that a church will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. The California ruling only applies to civil marriage.

The Catholics, the Mormons and others are pushing for the ban. I think an effective advertisement might be to ask how many same-sex marriages have the Catholics, the Mormons and others been forced to perform in Massachusetts and California. The answer is of course none. This ruling has no impact whatsoever on a church's ability to determine who may or may not be married in the eyes of the church.

So you see, what you are proposing is exactly what currently exists in California and Massachusetts, except rather than marriage and civil unions, they are both called marriage.

omg I love you! Quoted for truth couldn't apply to any other post more than this one.