Gay marriage: For those who just don't get it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

I could never truly explain why it is I want to have the right to marry my partner, and have that marriage accepted from my country apart from saying that, I love my partner with every ounce of my being. She is my soul mate, and is my very essence.

We are both a child of this world, and part of a country. In her case it is the United States, in my case, it is Australia. Because we are citizens of these countries, then we should infact have all the same rights and privlages awarded to everyone else in those countries.

But apart from telling you that, I couldn't explain it any better, because I am really not good with words. So I am going to let Columnist Deb Price do the talking for me.

My partner found this article and told me to read it. It touched both our hearts very closely. I was especially touched by the treatment the couple received from the people of Toronto after fidning out, they are newlyweds.

Even though this article is old now, I still feel it deserves recognition, because it is a truly brilliant piece.

After you read it, I ask you to sit back and think about things for a moment. I want you to think about how you would feel if you were told you couldn't marry the person you truly loved, because it goes against the church and is against the law. Then tell me how you truly feel.

If you are a person of colour then I want you to think about how you feel, about your ancestors not being able to marry a caucasian, no matter how much your ancestor loved that person. Then I want you to tell me how you truly feel. Because you know what? What the gay community is going through today, is no different to what you have gone through in the past.

Deb Price: Joined in marriage with Joyce


Standing in Toronto City Hall's wedding chapel, Joyce gently took my hand. Harp music softly filled the air. And the black-robed official smiled sweetly and began:

"This ceremony of marriage in which you come to be united is one of the oldest and most beautiful ceremonies in the world. And this it will be if you have it in your heart to beautify and sweeten it by your tender mindfulness of each other, and your patient efforts to enhance your life together," declared Officiant George McConnachie, whose cherubic cheeks and gray hair made him look like a young Father Christmas.

<snip>

Toronto's welcome to gay Canadians and foreigners who'd come to marry could not be warmer. City Hall had a gay pride flag flying alongside the bright red Canadian maple leaf. Marriage clerks took turns saying congratulations and taking our photographs. "You need more photos of the two of you together," one said, as she borrowed my camera and told us to keep smiling. And the town's newspaper seamlessly began saying "his husband," "her wife" and "the newlyweds" in articles.

Leaving Canada, I had to return to the airline ticket counter to check our tennis rackets. I explained to the U.S. Customs agent, "My spouse thought she could take them as a carry-on item." No one blinked at my new, accurate terminology.

Our first U.S. legal form to fill out after marrying was our Customs declaration. For the first time in 18 years of traversing the globe, we each noted that we were traveling with a "family member."

Full article: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/price/story/6966751p-7915726c.html

[Sapphocrat]

1. Excellent piece...

Very moving, and explains it in a way I never could either. Thanks for posting it.

I hope folks keep this one kicked -- it really deserves to be read, by everyone, on both sides of the issue.

[tedoll78]

2. What some people refuse to acknowledge..

The Constitution does guarantee equal protection.

It doesn't allow tradition to trump equal protection. Nowhere in the document does it say anything in the neighborhood of, "equal protection of the law - except when the tradition has been otherwise." People can lecture and tap-dance about history and religion and tradition all they want, but it weighs ZERO in the realm of Constitutional law.

I note that whenever this is pointed-out, the anti-equality folks prompty either go silent or conveniently ignore it. They've got nothing to combat those facts.

[unfrigginreal]

3. Sorry, I just don't get it

I'm headstrong for our rights, that could be accomplished with civil unions, I just don't see the need for marriage to be in the picture.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe we reach our ultimate goals only after incremental steps.

[Sapphocrat]

4. Two ways to look at it, unfrigginreal...

First: For those of us who want same-sex marriage -- and the right to call it "marriage" -- it puts us on a 100% equal par with the straights. "Civil unions" are fine if they grant all the same rights, but it's still "separate but equal." And on that basis, the straight folks may as well put the queer equivalent of "colored only" signs on public drinking fountains. Straights will always see us as inferior as long as we're not allowed to have "real" marriage in their eyes.

Second, I know not every LGBT person wants marriage, and plenty of people (including plenty of straights) are anti-marriage as an institution, for reasons that have nothing to do with the same-sex issue. I do want "real" marriage, but I certainly wouldn't demand or even expect anyone, gay or straight, to want it too. The solution is easy: Don't get married. But don't deny marriage to those of us who want marriage, truly, madly, and deeply.

As for "incremental steps," I understand completely what you're saying. But, rational or not, I'm just $%*&ing sick of being told to wait... you'll get yours... take baby steps... I'm just sick of it. I've spent all my life being told I wasn't as good as "normal" people. Well, damn it, I am as good and deserving as any hetero.

And I'm a freaking lot more deserving than those who get hitched to a total stranger on a drunken binge at a Vegas chapel, or the mail-order bride from Thailand or Russia who makes her new American husband believe she's actually in love with him for the entire two years it takes before she can divorce the schmuck and set up U.S. residency on her own, free and clear.

I'm sick of being LESS than THAT. I want my rights. I don't want to be mollified by baby steps anymore. It's wrong, it's pointless, and it just lets the anti-gay groups drag out the whole process as long as they can... and make ME suffer that much longer.

No, I'm not yelling at you, unfrigginreal. I'm yelling at what is. I hate it the way it is. I'm one angry lesbian, who sincerely believes that I will never be allowed to claim what is rightfully mine.

[unfrigginreal]

9. Sapphocrat, I don't know your age and it's probably not important...

but as someone who came of age in the '70's, I've got to tell you we have made monumental gains. Just the fact that Gay is accepted in today's vocabulary is astounding.

When I reached my teen years in the '70's, it was imperative that I conceal my sexuality...so much so that I got married in '79. You wanna talk about miserable?

It ended up in divorce, and I can tell you that it wasn't until the '90's that I came out. In other words, I was a pretty old man when I finally decided to stop lying to the world.

Things are much different today, in that kids are encouraged to be themselves regardless of sexuality. There are still areas of the country that this doesn't hold true but for the most part teens are allowed to be themselves.

We've come a long way Sapphocrat, and we still have a long way to go, but as I said in my previous post, I believe that incremental steps will get us there. My biggest lesson in this regard was when Clinton tried to live up to the FORCED promise to allow Gays in the military. The militant wing in OUR movement held his feet to the fire and guess what, America wasn't ready for it. I believe that it went a long way toward costing us the House in '94.

Incremental steps, that's the way to go.

[Sapphocrat]

27. unfrigginreal...

I think my age is important, because it may give you some insight into my experience...

I reached my teen years in the 70s too -- 1974, to be exact. When you were getting married (my God, how young were you?) in 1979, I was 18. I always "knew," and started poking my head out of the closet at 15 -- and then splintered the closet door when I barged out at age 19 -- so, I've been in people's faces since 1980.

I do understand -- honest, I do. I was involved in the marches, the rallies (God, I even saw Bella Abzug speak at an ERA rally in San Francisco - LOL), so I have seen a good deal of progress, and been very conscious of each baby step, for more than two decades.

And I appreciate what little gains we've made, but we're nowhere near the place we should be by now. Am I merely impatient? That's part of it; as you (as well as every political activist) knows, it's damned hard to work and work and work for a noble cause, and watch that cause crawl forward like a slug with a bad hangover... and suffer through some major setbacks along the way.

For us, I can't think of a greater setback than the AIDS crisis. I don't blame gay men; I am, and always will be, utterly enraged by the deliberate ignorance of those it did not touch. They purposely let countless of our brightest and best die, because we (and when it comes to AIDS, it's "we," not "you") did not matter.

Don't ask me how many funerals I've been to. I will never forgive those who hated us all so much as to let all those men die.

It's been nearly 20 years since "GRID" (which, as you probably remember, is what they called it when they didn't know what it was). And not a damned thing has changed: We are still second-rate. We still do not count.

Yes, I'm angry. Yes, I fuel that anger as productively as I can, but I can't deny what it is. It is anger.

How dare anyone "codify" my second-class status?

If there is one thing I learned from the darkest, earliest days of AIDS, it was that we do not have forever in front of us.

At 42, chances are that I have another 30 or 40 years ahead of me. But, at 42, I've seen enough death to know there are no guarantees. All it takes is a speeding bus. Or a plane flying into a tower. (Yes, I recognize that 9-11 has made me see everything as much more urgent. Some might call that irrational, but as I always say, what did the victims of 9-11 do that day to end up as they did? They got up, showered, dressed, and went to work -- just like any other day.)

So you see, unfrigginreal, it's not youth that makes me angry and impatient. It's my own mortality.

[unfrigginreal]

30. Impatience is not a bad thing, but...

you may want to revisit your expectations.

I understand the impatience that you express, I'm angry as well, I lost a lover for gods sake...to AIDS.

Look Sapphocrat, I want all of the same things that you want. The only difference between us is that I believe we need to convince the public of our plight, while you believe that our status should not be in question.

In my mind, we have made major steps as far as acceptance and rights in the last 15 years. I believe that we can make additional exponential steps over the next few years. But I also believe that if we push it down the throat of the public with marriage, we'll be destined to take MANY steps back.

We both want the same things Sapphocrat, we just have different ideas on how to get there.

[AndyTiedye]

6. Then do it with civil unions, and get the state out of the marriage biz

> I'm headstrong for our rights, that could be accomplished with civil unions, I just don't see the need for marriage to be in the picture.

Let's say that "marriage" is none of the state's business, period.
It is a ritual involving the couple, their family, and friends,
and whatever they choose to bring in to it.

All of the legal responsibilities and rights related there to
will be assigned to civil unions. Any existing marriage will
be automatically granted a parallel civil union, and a civil
union will be part of the legal paperwork that would normally
accompany a marriage.

Of course, a state should grant civil unions to any couple
who requested it and satisfied residency requirements. If
they deny them to gay couples they violate the equal protection clause.

The state would not have to sanction gay marriages, because the
state would not be sanctioning *any* marriages.

[foreigncorrespondent]

36. Civil Unions do NOT bring every right...

....to us that the heterosexuals have.

Brilliant they got civil unions in Vermont. My partner and I could go there tomorrow and take our vowes, but you know what? We would only get a fucking month together, and then I would have to leave and come back to Australia. You know why? Because civil unions don't bring immigration rights.

So any gay person that sits on this board and says that civil unions are just as good, well guess what? You are only fooling yourself!

[dansolo]

40. Immigration rights are a federal issue

If civil unions were enacted by federal statute, then immigration can be added to the benefits. But as long as it is only enacted by individual states, they have no authority over immigration.

[ErasureAcer]

5. my thoughts

America has turned into a theocracy. "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on my fucking money...I don't trust god. I don't even believe in a god...I don't disbelieve either. But whatever...we're living in a christian government backed society and that is WRONG WRONG WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

For the love of anything, will these dorks at DU wake up and support constituional candidates.

If I see Dennis Kucinich next saturday at the rally/speech I'm attending...I'm going to ask him how the hell he is going to get god off my agnostic money.

Some facts for those of you in the dark:

1860's: God was put on the 1 and 2 cent coins
1890's: God was on all coins
1950's: God was on all bills

I think this with also not allowing gay marriage totally goes against the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How is slapping God on my money not a law "respecting an establishment of religion"? God is a religious entity.

Furthermore, marriage should have nothing to do with churches. As government's shouldn't be recognizing some marriages from straight churches but not acknowledging marriages from gay churches...or Las Vegas or wherever.

This is a joke. America is a joke.

Vote for Dennis Kucinich who will stand up and make gay marriage legal. And who will hopefully get god off my money. Let's restore this country to its glory....to the constitution and the first and most important civil right to be enforced.

Dennis is the only one calling for gay marriage to be recognized on a federal level...or any level at all for that matter. This is your duty as patriots to support dennis and restore our constitution.

You have the opportunity to save America by voting for Kucinich. If you don't vote for someone who is going to restore the first amendment in this country, then you are no better than Ashcroft.

[REP]

7. Sad That a Step Back is a Step Forward

I don't believe any marriages should have legal standing. To me, marriage is an outdated, archaic construct of buying fertility and establishing ownership of women and children. To this day, a bad one can be difficult and financially costly to terminate, and its burdens far outweigh any benefits. I personally find it distasteful to obtain permission from the state to screw, and I look forward to civil unions being the recognized norm, and not religious ceremonies.

That said, if our society is still going to honor marriage, it's about damn time that anyone can marry anyone they want who is legally able to consent. Perhaps because of my liberal upbringing, I can't imagine how who one loves is anyone else's business, and why granting that person rights of inheritence, guardianship, etc is a threat to anyone.

[Egnever]

8. Hmmm

This is a sensitive issue so I am going to try to be as gentle as I can.

First I need to ask a question.

Is Gay marriage specifically prohibited legaly anywhere? I am under the impression it is not, and only that it isnt recognized as a legitimate form of marriage when it comes to state and federal rights/laws

Am a wrong on this?

Working from the viewpoint I described above It apears to me that what you are asking for is not to be able to be "married" but to be able to have all of the rights recognized. Can you not in fact be "married" by any number of different ways in many different ceremonies?

My problem with the whole gay marriage position is it seems to be asking the federal government to force religions to perform gay marriages. I am no holy roller cant remember the last time i went to church, but i dont like the idea of the government mandating what the churches do even a little bit.

As far as the rights portion is concerned The idea that civil uniouns/gay marriages arent afforded the same priveledges as any other marriage is unamerican.

My only problem with the whole thing is I dont believe in the flap over what its called civil union/marriage. Call it bunnymuffining i dont care the least its the rights that are crucial.

Hmm i dont really think i am clear here but i hope you get the gist of what i am trying to say.

Basically if you have the rights guarenteed under civil unions. and you go to a church or whatever that performs gay marriages. Are you not married? Or on the flip side if you do the same thing without Civil union legislation arent you still married also, but lacking the rights?

I dont know I just dont get the flap over the label

[tedoll78]

10. Civil marriage.

Civil marriages - the ones performed often at City Hall - are different from religious marrages. Many marriage ceremonies in churches are for both forms of marriage. Gays and their allies only want civil marriage equality. When gay marriage is legal, churches will still be free to decide whom they can marry. The right to religious belief will still be intact.

"Civil Unions" are a form of separate-but-equal. Supreme court precedent 9-0 says that this is unconstitutional.

And I know, "tradition" says the word marriage is special. I refer you to my earlier post (#2).

[Egnever]

11. Still not clear on this

So you are saying that there is specific legislation making gay marriage illeagle?

I am honestly not clear on this

[tedoll78]

12. Well..

There is federal legislation making it illegal for the federal government to recognize civil gay marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act. This piece of legislation also negates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to not recognize same-sex civil marriages from other states. At least 30 states have also passed mini-DOMAs making same-sex civil marriage illegal.

[Egnever]

13. Interesting

I will definately have to look at it closer before i make my decision on it. But at face value it seems to fall under the same separate but equal idea someone else was talking about earlier. I assume this has been challenged in the courts, any results on this?

If it were up to me I would allow for no difference berween gay marriages and hetero ones. I just dont feel any threat from them whatsoever. Live and let live is my moto. But marriage for the most part seems to be a religious institution and trying to legislate it that way seems a slipery slope to me.

This defense of marriage act seems to be real piece of work I find it amazing that it is allowed to stand really. But I dont know much about it so i will read up :)

[tedoll78]

16. It's been challenged to its conclusion in three courts.

Two of the courts ruled that it's illegal discrimination. Their state constitutions were amended before the decisions could go into effect. Hawaii was one of them, the other i forget.

One court - Vermont - ruled that the state legislature had to remedy the illegal discrimination by either civil unions or outright marriage. They went with civil unions. Governor Dean almost lost his office in the following election, having to wear a bulletproof vest in public.

Another ruling is pending in Massachusetts. Their court's senior justice has hinted that she wants to rule against the discrimination. That ruling is expected any day now. I'm bracing for the backlash.

[Egnever]

19. Aha!

So Doma is what directly lead to Vermonts signing of civil union legislation and was actually the case sited by Dean as causing him to take up the isue. I was not aware of that. Well i was aware there was a supreme court ruling on on something but was not aware of what it was related to.

Very interesting.

So do you feel that what vermont did was sufficient or is thier solution lacking?

[Egnever]

22. hmm also another ?

Does these decisions in and of themselves not put preasure on the sureme court at the federal level to follow suit?

Personally i would like to see Dean in the white house so this issue is attacked through legislation but baring that is it not well on its way to being decided in the courts?

[Egnever]

14. Well look at this!

"Senate supporters of the bill said it was a common-sense response to the Hawaii lawsuit. "The traditional family has stood for 5,000 years," said Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas. "Are we so wise today that we are ready to reject 5,000 years of recorded history? I don't think so."

But bill opponent Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Illinois, said the bill violates a constitutional requirement that states must recognize legal contracts in other states. "This further demonstrates that the Defense of Marriage Act is really about the politics of fear and division and about inciting people in an area which is admittedly controversial," she said.

Carol was doing the right thing back then! Isnt she right?

Why is this still standing?

[alaine]

15. I'm queer and I don't know the answer to whether a

civil union entitles a person to their dead spouses social security benefits, or entitles us to file taxes jointly, or eliminates the need for all those powers of attorney that one must have in case of emergency, or if civil unions apply in cases of wills.

If it confuses me I can only imagine how straight people must feel.

[Egnever]

17. Are you speaking of civil unions

in vermont or in general?

With any luck they soon will if we can get chimp out of office and replace him with the Doc!

[alaine]

18. In general. If it goes on a state by state basis then

I guess every state could be different since they are spitting on full faith and credit with DOMA.

[Egnever]

21. hmm so really

Doma needs to be thrown out first in order for anything to truely be acomplished.

[tedoll78]

20. Nope/

A state civil union does not allow for SS benefits or federal taxes. They usually do apply for powers of attorney and wills, although I've heard horror stories about other states not recognizing each others' civil unions and then ignoring the civil union as a will.

BTW.. CA now offers a limited statewide civil union arrangement. Hospital visitation, state employees' benefits, wills, etc. It's limited, but it's a start.

[DrRock]

23. Gay marriage

You know what sucks about this country? Richard Ramirez, aka "The Nightstalker", convicted AND admitted murderer of at least 16 people (probably more), who not only committed and admitted to his horriffic crimes which included cutting out a woman's eyes and forcibly sodomizing a young boy while forcing his mother to listen (did I mention the murders?), and who also shows absolutely no remorse for these acts, and says that if he had the opportunity would continue to do so until the entire world was dead, and now sits on death row waiting to die for his crimes, can get married in this country, but two loving committed people who are of the same gender cannot. THAT is what's wrong with this country.

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. DrRock...

....I thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Very well said, my friend.

[alaine]

24. Thanks, in essence we need a "lemon law" to repeal

any civil union crap and get the real deal (legal marriage) instead.

Hell, I can have a ceremony in my backyard. I'm not a member of any religion but my own, so I don't care about the church part (although some people do) but I definitely want federal benefits if I'm gonna take the leap.

Thanks so much for your response, it's yes on the p.o.a. and wills and no on the s.s.i. and taxes... and I wonder why I am confused?

[unfrigginreal]

26. Yeah that all sounds well and good...

but the only thing that you will accomplish is to fire up the right wing base. Sure go ahead and think it through and you'll be right every time that marriage should be legal and at the same time you'll be enboldening our enemies.

There is a way to get there but it's not by ramming our ideas down the oppositions throats.

[alaine]

29. Um, excuse me, but the right wing base is already fired

up. They always have been, since I can remember. Ever heard of Anita Bryant?

http://www.nogaymarriage.com

My purpose on this thread was to ask the thread author, who seemed knowledgible on the subject, the difference between civil unions and gay marriage. I'm not "emboldening the enemy" or ramming anything down anyone's throat, so don't ram your self-righteous attitude down mine. Put it to better use fighting for social justice or something. Geez.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

38. alaine...

...the difference between civil unions and marriage is: with civil unions you can go to Vermont and get "unionized", and enjoy the rights that come with getting unionized, but the moment you leave Vermont, those "unionized" rights won't be accepted.

However, with marriage you get everything from tax rights, to immigration rights.

[Sapphocrat]

25. Egnever, I'll try to answer as best I can

This is a sensitive issue so I am going to try to be as gentle as I can.

Oh, don't worry, I've heard it all. LOL No, seriously, I appreciate your sensitivity.

First I need to ask a question.

Is Gay marriage specifically prohibited legaly anywhere? I am under the impression it is not, and only that it isnt recognized as a legitimate form of marriage when it comes to state and federal rights/laws

Am a wrong on this?

Yes, you are wrong on this. First, the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), signed into law by Clinton in 1996, specified a federal definition of "marriage" (the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife") and "spouse" ("a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife"). DoMA also says that any "unions" that do not fit this description are not eligible for federal benefits.

In addition, there are 30-something states which specifically ban same-sex marriage within that state, refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other state (and there are NO states which perform legal, same-sex marriages -- it did NOT pass in Vermont or Hawaii), and do NOT recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the United States.

In addition (unless the laws have changed recently), Texas and Nebraska have statutes specifically barring same-sex couples from eligibility for state benefits afforded heterosexual married couples.

So, yes, same-sex marriage is specifically, legally prohibited almost everywhere -- and no state recognizes same-sex marriage, period.

Working from the viewpoint I described above It apears to me that what you are asking for is not to be able to be "married" but to be able to have all of the rights recognized.

No, what I want is to be "married," with exactly the same rights heteros get with the package.

Let's put it this way: If you're going to give us all the same rights, why insist on going to the trouble of creating an entirely separate category for us? That does not make us equal to you. That differentiates us from you. (And wouldn't giving us a "special classification" come dangerously close to giving us "special rights"?)

It may be difficult to understand if you're straight, but I am one of those queers who wants full integration between straight and gay society. Of course, I want my own friends, just as you want yours. But I am talking about the same sort of integration as there now exists between black people and white people. We may stick to "our own kind" out of familiarity and comfort, but there is no longer any legal prohibition against African-Americans getting married -- or against a black person being denied a job, an education, or anything else available to white people.

Fear creates prejudice. Now that it's been demonstrated that black people and white people can co-exist without the sky falling or the mountains crumbling into the sea, that kind of bigotry seems absolutely ridiculous to us today, doesn't it?

And when you look at the "reasons" given by the stubborn holdouts who were still fighting against civil rights in 1964, the "justifications" given to deny black people anything were nothing less than barbaric. Those same false accusations (and worse) are used today against gay people.

As a white child, I never understood what it was I was supposed to be afraid of. As a gay person, I still don't understand why so many straight people fear us.

Anyway, I could go on with the black-white/gay-straight comparisons all night, but I won't. See what I said earlier about the "separate but equal" bugaboo.

Can you not in fact be "married" by any number of different ways in many different ceremonies?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm more married to my partner than the majority of straight couples I know. I don't need some sort of ceremonial ritual from either the church or the state to validate my relationship -- to me. I think you're missing a big point with this question: I want the same "marriage" options you have for two primary reasons: 1) The legal recognition would give us the same rights and protections as het couples; 2) The "validation" is not for my benefit, but for yours.

That may not make sense to you, so let me ask you this: If black people were still banned from marrying one another, would you see them as "married" if their only option was jumping the broom? They would, but it is doubtful the vast majority of white society would place the same value on their relationship as they did.

My problem with the whole gay marriage position is it seems to be asking the federal government to force religions to perform gay marriages. I am no holy roller cant remember the last time i went to church, but i dont like the idea of the government mandating what the churches do even a little bit.

Neither do I. But listen -- if you hear nothing else in everything I say, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS ONE THING: We are NOT asking for, nor demanding, that the state interfere with the church, in ANY marriage. Every church is already entitled to marry -- or refuse to marry -- anyone they want. Some churches refuse to marry members to non-members. Lots of churches place certain restrictions on who they'll marry, and some require the couple to undergo certain "programs" or complete counseling before they can be married in the church.

And that is fine. That is as it should be. I don't want to force my ways on your church any more than I want your church to force its beliefs on my life. (Obviously, I firmly believe in freedom of religion -- and freedom from religion.)

However -- and this is equally as important, if not moreso -- it is the church mandating what the government does that keeps same-sex marriage (and a host of other issues with which no church should interfere) illegal.

The anti-gay forces WANT you to believe that we are trying to force "our ways" onto your churches, and onto you. It is a lie. There is no "gay agenda" to bend the will of any church. There is no "gay agenda" at all, save for the fight to be treated equally -- no more, but no less.

As far as the rights portion is concerned The idea that civil uniouns/gay marriages arent afforded the same priveledges as any other marriage is unamerican.

I'm glad you see it that way.

My only problem with the whole thing is I dont believe in the flap over what its called civil union/marriage. Call it bunnymuffining i dont care the least its the rights that are crucial.

What is "bunnymuffining"?

In any case, yes, it's the rights that are the most crucial. But if all marriages are boiled down to nothing more than the granting of a set of rights, then shouldn't we just abolish the archaic notion of "marriage" altogether, and institute a civil-union institution that applies equally to straights and gays alike?

And there is a lot of merit in that argument. Honestly, if the traditional institution of straight marriage were abolished in favor of a civil-union system for all, I would be the first to happily discard any notion of "marriage."

Again, it is simply a matter of this: Either we are all equal, in all ways, or we are not.

I'm willing to adopt either system -- as long as it is applied equally, with no differentiation between hets and gays.

Hmm i dont really think i am clear here but i hope you get the gist of what i am trying to say.

Basically if you have the rights guarenteed under civil unions. and you go to a church or whatever that performs gay marriages. Are you not married? Or on the flip side if you do the same thing without Civil union legislation arent you still married also, but lacking the rights?

Well, I'll turn it around: Why don't you just go to a justice of the peace for the legal union, and have a separate ceremony in a church?

Somebody here at DU (I forget who) made a point with which I agree fully: The problem with marriage is that the clergy should never have been allowed to perform what is a legal function in the first place.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? If all things were equal, then all unions (or marriages) would be officiated by a justice of the peace, judge, or other government representative -- and the ceremony, whether you want a church wedding, or a naked tryst in the woods under the Solstice moon, would be entirely separate, and have no effect whatsoever on the legal status of the union recognized by the state.

The thing people get upset about is the idea that if a marriage ceremony is not performed by a minister or priest, it's not valid in the eyes of God. If that's so important to you and your betrothed, then go have your minister bless your marriage, holy union, whatever you want to call it.

Why should it be any different for us?

Personally, I don't care about being married in a church, as I do not belong to any church. My partner wants a church wedding, and that's fine with me -- but it's fine if we do it outside in a park, and exchange our own vows with no one to officiate, too. (Well, I might need somebody cueing me from the wings at such a nervous-making moment. LOL) I would very much enjoy the ritual of a church wedding, but only because it is familiar and comforting to me (i.e., it gives me warm fuzzies).

It's not that I don't believe in a Higher Power of any kind (I do) -- it's just that I already know I have the blessing of the universe in something so right and good and true to my soul.

I dont know I just dont get the flap over the label

Again, if "marriage" as we know it were abolished, I wouldn't care if it were called a "legally binding entanglement of your life with somebody else's and why would you ever do such a thing, you crazy fool?" LOL

It may be a matter of semantics to you, but it is a critically important symbol of equality to me.

In other words, as long as there is a label, I want it applied equally across the board. And if all I can have is called a "civil union," then everyone should be limited to what is referred to as a "civil union."

Does that make more sense?

[Cornus]

33. Incrredible Response!

Sapphocrat, your are absolutely wonderful...you make so much sense. I just wish that the * group could read your post. Unlikely, but perhaps some of them would 'see the light'. You explain everything so clearly and so well.

[muchacho]

28. Nuts

I absolutely get it, and believe that gays and lesbians should have the same right to drive each other nuts in blissful matrimony.

[Rowdyboy]

32. Fascinating thread...

I'm gay, would probably get married if I could, but don't really care that much. My guy is gonna be here regardless, I have a will and the necessary medical paperwork done so that he makes my medical decisions and receives my estate.

Should I have the right? Of course. Does it bother me that I don't? Yes. Is it a major, gut-wrenching factor in my life? No.

Still, this is a very interesting thread and I'm glad it was started. I'm very interested in the opinions of my contemporaries on this issue. Who better knows where we're coming from. And, yes, I too came of age during the monsterous 1970's...

[ninkasi]

34. My wish, as a hetero woman...

is for this country to celebrate and approve of loving, stable couples. Some will be straight, some will be gay. That should be up to each couple.

I came of age in the 50's...and maybe my reasons for wishing gay marriage were legal are selfish, but let me explain them to you. When I grew up, the races were segregated, and it was a hateful, degrading, horrible thing. It was wrong, and it changed, even though there is still a lot to do to bring fairness to minorities.

Now, gays are being denied the same human rights we straights take for granted. It's hateful, degrading, and wrong. There is a man who is my daughter's age, they're both in their mid thirties. He's like a son to me, and has lived with his partner for quite a few years now.

Nothing would give me greater happiness than to be able to attend his wedding, which he wants, and celebrate with love and happiness, just as I did when my son married my daughter-in-law. I for the life of me can't see why he should be denied the same right straight couples have, to have a marriage, a wedding, and the ability to say his vows in front of the ones he and his partner chose to have attend.

[cap]

35. incrementalism is a better approach...

"marriage" is an emotional word for many straight people. "Civil Union" is not as emotionally loaded...

Get a lot of the middle of the road people who aren't entirely on board with gay rights comfortable with the idea of gays as families... As people get divorced and enter into civil unions and have to deal with kids, you will start to see more and more gay families. Publicize these families well. Then publicize the consequences of the family not having benefits and how that plays out when kids are affected. Get more benefits incrementally. Then when a "comfort level" has been hit go for marriage.

You need to get a consensus together and "familiarity breeds ease". Gays got a lot more accepted as soon as they started showing more mainstream gays on TV and not the "swish" side. Having their parents stick up for them helped a lot too. Same with marriage. Get the hetero community used to the idea that stable couples are a better thing for society -- if nothing else, it's better for disease control. Then start showing gay families. Then go for marriage.

Many straights aren't ready to do bridal showers and gifts etc for a gay couple -- at least not yet. So start off with something they can understand. As more civil unions take place, many will use the traditions of marriage. As straights see more of it and realize there's no great harm to it, then more will be more friendly to "marriage".

How the gay community goes about getting what it wants is very important to success. I have seen gays get accepted in my red neck hometown -- you wouldn't believe how many guys came out there. After the initial shock, at the end of the day, we all realized it was still the same old Gary and still the same old Jim.

Waiting for marriage is hard. But it would be worse to backfire and lead to more repression. The point about gays in the military above is a good one. Clinton wanted to do an Eisenhower-like social change with one pen stroke -- it didn't work.

[Skittles]

39. I GET IT

EVEN THOUGH I AM STRAIGHT AND HAVE *NEVER* WANTED TO BE MARRIED !!! :D

[foreigncorrespondent]

41. And this is what it is all about...

...I found this article while doing my usual daily search of interesting news to add to my blog, and thought it so perfectly fits in here, with everything that has been talked about.

And for those who still don't get it, try these words (which I am lifting from the article I am posting) Gays and lesbians will settle for nothing less than full marriage rights because anything else is pure discrimination. And my dear DU family THAT is so true.

Gays and lesbians blast pseudo-marriage status as discriminatory


OTTAWA (CP) -- Gays and lesbians will settle for nothing less than full marriage rights because anything else is pure discrimination, one of Canada's leading gay-rights groups said Monday.

Some federal Liberal MPs are urging their government to back away from its proposed same-sex marriage legislation and instead create a parallel status for gay and lesbian couples.

That's not good enough, says the gay-rights group Egale.

"Imagine if the federal government prohibited interracial couples or Jewish couples from marrying but said 'We'll let you register your partnership instead,' " Laurie Arron, executive director of the group, said in a statement.

"The very idea is offensive and demeaning."

A sizeable faction of Liberal MPs is denouncing the planned legislation that would eventually allow gays and lesbians to marry across the country.

Full article: http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Same-Sex.html

This article might be set in Canada, but it stands for the entire world, after all the majority of the world, does discriminate against us, don't they?