Same-sex marriage

[Charade]

Holy cow, what a bunch of --- deception. I've seen a lot of silliness passed off as news online, but this takes the cake.
Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com -- Yes on 8, a project of California Renewal. 915 L Street, #C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814. 916-446-2956. Major funding by Knights of Columbus, National Organization for Marriage California Committee and Focus on the Family.
SOURCE ProtectMarriage.com

It is an ADVERTISEMENT from people who are opposed to homosexuals marrying. Don't be snowed under.

I read the piece. Is there anything factually incorrect in there? I don't know. I don't have a horse in that race.

 

[Saxton]

I will be flamed for this but ... if you permit gay marriage I don't understand how you can continue prevent polygamous marriages.

All arguments used to support gay marriage are just as valid for polygamous marriages.

In my view, we have just reached the slippery slope.

Although that may be your opinion you won’t find any facts to back it up. It hasn’t happened in MA, it hasn’t happened in Canada and it hasn’t happened in any other country that has legalized gay marriage or civil partnerships. The slippery slope argument is often used to invoke fear when there is no justifiable reason to deny rights to same sex couples. The reality is that laws only need to be written in such a way to permit unions between two (two being the key word) consenting adults. The argument for gay marriage is that two people in a committed same sex relationship should be able to have all the same rights as two people in a heterosexual relationship.

 

[perla75]

Lisa and I have been together for going on 8 years. We cannot file taxes jointly, be covered on each others insurance policies, or be allowed to visit one another in the hospital as family....even though we are. We are about as married as any couple could be, except for one thing.....we cannot legally do so.

If something were to happen to either of us, the other person would have to rely on our blood family to make any decisions. Now, we are blessed to have two supportive families, who understand our committed relationship and have verbally agreed that we call the shots....even though ultimately the words may have to come from one of them. That is horrible to even think about, but when such a right does not exist for you, you have to make a way to make what you wish happen, if that makes any sense at all.

Being able to be legally married, would open many doors for us and ultimately solve many potential problems. It is something that I wish the state of NC would consider, but I fear that they never will.

I wear a diamond on the third finger of my left hand, given to me by Lisa. She wears one also, given by me. We both hope that someday we can be legally married. In the meantime we are planning a commitment ceremony but it is in no way the same.

Linda

Thank you for sharing your story with us. I've had several friends go through the same burdens as you, as far as dealing with taxes, hospitalizations, legal decision making & I feel for you. Luckily, I live in Massachusetts & some of my gay friends have tied the knot, others are lucky to qualify for joint health insurance.

It's silly and unfortunate that people can live so fearfully & their fears will cause such burdens for others. What confuses me is: many people are against gay marriage, but they are ok with allowing divorcees who were unfaithful to their spouses to get remarried-didn't those people sin or "ruin the sanctity of marriage"?

I will never understand those points of view & I guess I just chalk it up to people being fearful of differences. I'm not saying anyone has to approve of the way everyones lives in this life, i just think all people should be granted the right to live happily.

 

[perla75]

I will be flamed for this but ... if you permit gay marriage I don't understand how you can continue prevent polygamous marriages.

All arguments used to support gay marriage are just as valid for polygamous marriages.

In my view, we have just reached the slippery slope.

I personally wouldn't care, but I'm wondering logistically-would legal polygamy get very messy with taxes, family health plans, etc...? Gay marriage is just between two people so those aspects wouldnt really be different than man/woman marriage.

 

[LukenDC]

You can't make religious organizations marry them

But they will be harrassed/sued etc....if they don't. That will be the next step.

I sincerely doubt that anti-gay churches will be harassed and sued if they do not marry gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians have dozens of religious options when marrying and I doubt that gay couples would get married where they are not wanted. Churches also have broad leeway regarding who they will and will not marry. It's not as if a heterosexual couple can walk into any church and force the minister to marry them.

I do think that a healthy debate about homosexuality will continue in churches throughout the country. But that debate is being fostered from the inside, often from gays and lesbians who grew up in the church.

 

[kelleigh1]

As Bicker said, same-sex marriage has been legal here in MA for a few years now with the first taking place in May of 2004. The state hasn't fallen apart (ok, maybe it has, but for other reasons completely.) And there haven't been any lawsuits against any churches for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony and as was stated, there just wouldn't be any grounds for it.

I firmly support the right of two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to one another to be married. Why shouldn't everyone have the same rights that I have? Isn't that what equal rights is all about? I value my marriage and all the trials the come with it. The poster from NC who can't marry her gf will probably face many of the same trials, in sickness and in health, through good times and bad, so why shouldn't she have the same rights and benefits that I have?

 

[dejr_8]

Although that may be your opinion you won’t find any facts to back it up. It hasn’t happened in MA, it hasn’t happened in Canada and it hasn’t happened in any other country that has legalized gay marriage or civil partnerships. The slippery slope argument is often used to invoke fear when there is no justifiable reason to deny rights to same sex couples. The reality is that laws only need to be written in such a way to permit unions between two (two being the key word) consenting adults. The argument for gay marriage is that two people in a committed same sex relationship should be able to have all the same rights as two people in a heterosexual relationship.

It's not going to happen immediatly but your statement is not internally consistent.

You are essentially saying that a law can't be written (or constitutional) that only permits marriage to be between a woman and a man and thus marriage MUST be permitted between woman/woman, man/man and woman/man. More specifically you are saying that a law IS constitutional if it says that only two people can marry.

How you can limit the argument to only two people? If it is constitutional for ANY TWO people to marry why isn't it also constitutional for ANY THREE people to marry?

Please explain.

 

[eliza61]

California has a proposition on the ballot revolving around same-sex marriage. I personally am pretty moderate in everything not relating to environment, and can usually see both points of view on every topic but I just can't for this one. I mean I understand that people are pro and against abortion because of the life factor, I understand gun control relates to public safety, I also understand that the war touches each person individually.

But I really don't understand why gay marriage matters so much? It legitimately doesn't affect the marriage of anyone else, so why does it matter? Someone enlighten me please, I need to understand both sides before voting.

I think it's more of a moral issue than any thing. Some people believe that marriage is a holy institution and gay marriage some how desicrates that and also that it some how breaks down the "family".
Don't know why it is so important, who some one else marries and sleeps with is so far down on my radar its not even a blip and the way I look at it us, heteroes have done our fair share of "breaking down the family" that I'm not about to start telling some one else how to do it.

 

[TomLovesBecky]

California has a proposition on the ballot revolving around same-sex marriage. I personally am pretty moderate in everything not relating to environment, and can usually see both points of view on every topic but I just can't for this one. I mean I understand that people are pro and against abortion because of the life factor, I understand gun control relates to public safety, I also understand that the war touches each person individually.

But I really don't understand why gay marriage matters so much? It legitimately doesn't affect the marriage of anyone else, so why does it matter? Someone enlighten me please, I need to understand both sides before voting.

I'm with you. From what I can tell, the main objection is moral/religious, not because anything would be taken away from heterosexual marriages. My church teaches tolerance so in my opinion the religious message is "live and let live"...I think gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry if they want. Or at the very least have civil unions that give them the exact same legal rights, but I don't know how they feel about that. If I were gay I'd probably be pretty ticked that I couldn't get married to the person I loved and wanted to spend my life with.

 

[goofy4tink]

I live in Mass....quite happily so. It's at times like these that I'm thrilled to live here. I can find no compelling reason for anyone to hinder gay civil unions. While I'm sure that many gay couples would love to be 'married' in churches, a lot of churches can not accomodate them...it is against their rules and canons. They are considered private sector, so can do pretty much as they wish. But.....if a gay couple wants to be united, they can have a civil ceremony. And if that serves the purpose of giving equal rights as far as insurance and other such mundane aspects of married life, then terrific. That's as it should be.
For the life of me, I can't see what difference it makes to anyone if my brother has a civil ceremony making him legal partner with his life partner. How does that harm anyone else?? The percentage of gay couples, together for longer than 10 years, is much higher than the percentage of my 'straight' friends' marriages. Now, of course, that isn't an official count but that's my experience.

Should this be taught in the schools? Not really. But, I want sex education to be my choice as well. Dear heaven...the schools can barely teach the things they should be teaching, here in Mass. If it ain't on the MCAS, most teachers here in Mass aren't teaching it!! That one book, 'The King and King' was a solitary incident if I remember correctly.

We had one gay couple, had been together for 15 years by 2004, and had a committment ceremony in NJ about 6 yrs before. But, when Mass legalized civil unions for gays, they jumped on it. Our priest (Episcopalian) wasn't allowed to marrry them in church, but he sure as heck officiated at their house! As long as the ceremony wasn't in the church, it was fine. I really doubt that most gay and lesbian couples are going to scream bloody murder if they can't be married in an actual 'church'...it's just a building for crying out loud!!! I would imagine that as long as they get those same rights that my dh and I have, they will be thrilled.

 

[eliza61]

Here is an interesting article to read. It might help you make your decision.

It isn't just about 'allowing' gays to marry.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...27F03A-80C6-4259-8A81-E5D73F237D93}&dist=hppr


From the Wall Street Journal.

That was an interesting article but in no way biased so I wouldn't really take every thing in it as fact.
The question I have is in the 2nd grade who the heck "teaches" marriage? Its no where to be found in the curriculum in NJ and most of the schools don't approach health education until 7th or 8th grade. Most schools here actually veer away from the topic for so many reasons (single parents, divorced, not living with any parent, etc etc) Catholic and private schools definitely have more leadway but public schools are very very careful.

Article read more like a scare tatic than an opposing view. Like "gays will brainwash our kids if we let them marry"

 

[bicker]

No, religious organizations may discriminate even in hiring if it is accordance with their religious beliefs.

Yes, I misspoke before. That's true. It shouldn't be, but it is.

It should be noted that here in MA if a church does discriminate it can only do so by "giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination". As such, it cannot favor someone of another (perhaps compatible) religion over someone of some other (perhaps incompatible) religion. It hasn't come up in court cases, though, as far as I know.

 

[bicker]

I read the piece. Is there anything factually incorrect in there?

The advertisement seems to imply that schools would be teaching children how to engage in a same-sex marriage ("same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools" like "calculus will be taught in California public schools"); that interpretation is patently untrue. I can assure everyone that no Massachusetts schools teach children how to engage in a same-sex marriage.

What is happening in Massachusetts is that children are being taught that there are among them are children from families with same-sex parents. The purpose of diversity education is to make people less hateful. That's something that, apparently, Prop 8 in California opposes. I'm not sure why people would stand up and fight for hate.

Many of the conflicts within our society stem from people hating people who are different from them. It seems that a lot more work is needed in that regard.

Anyway, without knowing what the author really intended to say it is hard to know even if the intention was honest or deceitful. Surely, the wording, itself, was deceptive and manipulative, and as such, worthy of strong condemnation.

 

[Laura]

Additional question for those in states that have legalized gay marriage (not just civil unions): Do churches that believe homosexuality is against their religion have the right to say "no" to marry a same-sex couple or would they risk the potential of a lawsuit on the grounds of discrimination?

I've always wondered that.

Also, what exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

Religious institutions already decide for themselves whom they wish to marry within the bonds of their faiths. A Catholic priest would refuse to marry a couple where one party was divorced.

Basically, some people have an issue with gay people using the word marriage. Some folks believe marriage is solely a religious institution. Legally, of course, it isn't. I was not married to my DH in a religious ceremony but I have a marriage certificate just like someone married in the same county but in a church. Civil unions for gays would be a separate document that doesn't mention the word marriage but would enable gay couples to receive the same benefits as married hetero couples. Straights couldn't get a civil union certificate (even if having a non-religious ceremony like I did) and gays couldn't get a marriage certificate (even if their religion permits same-sex unions). Seems silly to me.

 

[Laura]

I will be flamed for this but ... if you permit gay marriage I don't understand how you can continue prevent polygamous marriages.

All arguments used to support gay marriage are just as valid for polygamous marriages.

In my view, we have just reached the slippery slope.

Not at all. Marrying multiple people brings on a whole different set of legalities. Would there be a "primary wife" who gets to make health care decisions for the husband or do the wives vote? There are issues of survivorship, permission for the husband to marry an additional wife if the other wives don't agree, and are the wives married to each other or just the husband? Could there be multiple husbands and wives--which could wreak havoc on the whose child is whose issue. Divorce could be extraordinarily complex.

 

[Charade]

The advertisement seems to imply that schools would be teaching children how to engage in a same-sex marriage ("same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools" like "calculus will be taught in California public schools"); that interpretation is patently untrue. I can assure everyone that no Massachusetts schools teach children how to engage in a same-sex marriage.

What is happening in Massachusetts is that children are being taught that there are among them are children from families with same-sex parents. The purpose of diversity education is to make people less hateful. That's something that, apparently, Prop 8 in California opposes. I'm not sure why people would stand up and fight for hate.

Many of the conflicts within our society stem from people hating people who are different from them. It seems that a lot more work is needed in that regard.

Anyway, without knowing what the author really intended to say it is hard to know even if the intention was honest or deceitful. Surely, the wording, itself, was deceptive and manipulative, and as such, worthy of strong condemnation.

So what was the point (other than what was stated) of taking a class trip to see the mayor of SF perform a gay marriage? IMO, that goes a little beyond "a teachable moment".

 

[CTPinkPrincess]

So what was the point (other than what was stated) of taking a class trip to see the mayor of SF perform a gay marriage? IMO, that goes a little beyond "a teachable moment".

From what I understand that "class trip" was actually organized by the parents of the kids in that class - not the school.

DD goes to Catholic school so I have no clue - do the public schools anywhere currently teach about hetrosexual marriage?

And as far as the slippery slope, if you define marriage as between two consenting adults (because by legal definition marriage is a contract and must fulfill the legal requirements of a contract) how would that change if two homosexual people were allowed to marry?

 

[Cindy F]

Marriage is not just a religious ceremony, it is a legal contract and always has been....even back in "bible days" hence dowrys, marriage for political alliance, property etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Marriage may or may not be sanctioned by a church. I can legally marry someone who has been divorced but it will not be recognized by the Catholic Church.

I can not believe gay marriage is still against the law, with absolutely no legal foundation to ban it. Gay people should have the right to marry whomever they choose, if a church refuses to sanction it-that is their right as well but the government has no legal reason to refuse to allow two, of age, competent adults enter into a contract.

Now, if all married heterosexual couples would like to give up all of the legal rights provided by marriage including tax deductions, property division, etc then it may be a different story but I have a feeling quite a few people would "change their mind about gay marriage" being illegal if they thought some of their rights might be forfeited.

If you are going to base laws on any religious books or teachings then we need to have a national accepted religion and church which sorta negates the entire purpose on which our country was founded doesn't it?

 

[RickinNYC]

I'll let straight people keep the word "marriage" if that will maintain some comfort level on their part. If folks want to get embroiled in semantics, I'll let them duke it out over a word. Just keep your hands off "fabulous". That's ours.

Now, in all seriousness, I don't know a single gay person that is asking for anything but legal equality, hence civil unions. Not me. Not my partner. Not my closest friend. No one. Those that would argue otherwise are simply looking for as many excuses to rationalize their own personal homophobic agenda. Some will use legal doctrine. Others will blather on about "super" rights as opposed to EQUAL rights. And yet others will then state smugly that this will then lead to polygamy, and then underage marriage and on and on. What the hell, let's throw in bestiality just to make things even, eh? No matter your excuse, you're simply homophobic.

Oh, and Joe and I just had our 18th anniversary this past Wednesday. 18 years of not being able to get "married" or "civil unioned" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Yet, the median duration in the US for those heterosexual marriages that end in divorce is just a little shy of 8 years. And only an average of 52% of all marriages in the US actually reach the 15th anniversary mark.

So the only ones out there that I'm aware of that are making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage are heterosexuals. We haven't had a chance to screw it all up yet.

 

[bicker]

Not at all. Marrying multiple people brings on a whole different set of legalities.

I'm not in favor of legalizing plural marriage, but I also haven't seen anyone post a valid argument against it.

Would there be a "primary wife" who gets to make health care decisions for the husband or do the wives vote?

When a person is a widow or widower, and so next of kin are two children, how are such decisions made?

There are issues of survivorship, permission for the husband to marry an additional wife if the other wives don't agree, and are the wives married to each other or just the husband?

Survivorship: See above.

Additional marriages: First, your statement presupposes polygamy, instead of perhaps polyandry or more free-form plural marriage (i.e., n husbands + m wives). Second, that's not a barrier, but just a question to answer, one way or another. I suspect that, should society ever go this direction (which I doubt, but I'm sure people in Rome thought that Christianity would never take off either) that the answer would be that all additional marriages would be mutual (unanimous) decisions of all spouses, together.

Could there be multiple husbands and wives--which could wreak havoc on the whose child is whose issue.

No more so than adultery does today, and there are no civil laws against that in most states.

Divorce could be extraordinarily complex.

Just by a differential amount, not orders of magnitude.

However, you're point is well-taken: Same-sex marriage adds absolutely no complications more than adoption does, while plural marriage would add a lot of additional complications.