Who won't settle for anything less than legal?

[iankh]

Ok, maybe I'm stirring things up a bit, 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! 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.
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

Post where the rest of the pics are

 

[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!