Rhode Island moves toward marriage equality

peacefrompaul

Good

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/24/rhode-is ... -equality/

fear4freedom

Im fiscally conservative and socially moderate and I dont mind at all who marries who and I can hang out with gays or bi's and it dont matter to me. I am very easy going for a Conservative Christian man. I understand the rationality and I empathize with everyone's right to do whatever they feel.

However, I must say that for hundreds and even thousands of years, the entire world has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, therefore, they are also at odds for calling a gay union, a marriage. I mean, who are we to force the entire world to change the definition of marriage just because over the past few decades people wish to do so. Who are we to tell the world that we are changing the definition of marriage? Why cant gay marriages be called "civil unions". What if all civil unions got all the tax breaks that a marriage does? What if the only difference is the word itself? How can %15 of the population force %85 to accept these changes? Even if is %50 support gays to marry, does that same amount support changing the definition of it? Also, why is the word marriage so important to attain for gays? Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

Just wondering!

peacefrompaul

Civil union sounds so very de facto to me... what you are describing, fear, is equal... but it's not.

jethrojam420

fear4freedom wrote:

Im fiscally conservative and socially moderate and I dont mind at all who marries who and I can hang out with gays or bi's and it dont matter to me. I am very easy going for a Conservative Christian man. I understand the rationality and I empathize with everyone's right to do whatever they feel.

However, I must say that for hundreds and even thousands of years, the entire world has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, therefore, they are also at odds for calling a gay union, a marriage. I mean, who are we to force the entire world to change the definition of marriage just because over the past few decades people wish to do so. Who are we to tell the world that we are changing the definition of marriage? Why cant gay marriages be called "civil unions". What if all civil unions got all the tax breaks that a marriage does? What if the only difference is the word itself? How can %15 of the population force %85 to accept these changes? Even if is %50 support gays to marry, does that same amount support changing the definition of it? Also, why is the word marriage so important to attain for gays? Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

Just wondering!

My question for you is: Why protect a word? What's in a word? Are we so high on keeping a definition true to its so-called original form that we must fight to preserve its integrity? Why, then, did we not fight to keep words like bomb and hood? Better still, why did we let homosexuals change the meaning of gay so many years ago?

Marriage is a word that means whatever you want it to mean. To me, it means when two people love each other they profess said love in a way that stands the test of time, forever and ever. This union cannot be broken by person, God or country - and yet is supported by all three (or two if you feel that way).

People over the years have diluted the word Marriage. Britney Spears, Larry King, and Kim Kardashion are a few recent examples. But do same-sex Marriages dilute the word? It is still a union of two people who love each other.

I am a married man; I married the love of my life about two years ago. If someone told me that the love i share does not qualify as a marriage, but does, instead, qualify as a civil union...I assure you, I would be, to use the parlance of our time, insanely pissed. What gives any person the right to define who I love and want to spend the rest of my life with?

I should also say that I am strait, and married to a woman. But, if I feel that way about my love, I can only assume that another person so in love with anybody would feel the same. Who am I to question that? Really, who is anyone?

Thank you Rhode Island House for standing up for what is right. I hope that the Senate will follow suit, and soon the Federal Supreme Court.

JimmyV

I love living in New England.

callen

fear4freedom wrote:

However, I must say that for hundreds and even thousands of years, the entire world has defined marriage as between one man and one woman

and....who cares what people used to think? fk the past, its about the future.

EZ1221C

Good on you Rhode Island. Change is coming, slowly but surely.

Prince Of Dorkness

fear4freedom wrote:

However, I must say that for hundreds and even thousands of years, the entire world has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, therefore, they are also at odds for calling a gay union, a marriage.

Well... but no. That's not true. In many parts of the world, marriage has meant one man and as many women as he wanted. And for years in other parts of the world, marriage has been a union of two people.

Get over yourself. You are not "the entire world."

fear4freedom wrote:

I mean, who are we to force the entire world to change the definition of marriage just because over the past few decades people wish to do so.

OK... and first of all... there are MANY countries that already have marriage equality. I know this will come as a huge shock to you but laws in the US do not, in fact, affect "the entire world."

Get over yourself. You are not "the entire world."

fear4freedom wrote:

Who are we to tell the world that we are changing the definition of marriage?

Can I ask you if you actually think that "the world" gives a shit what you think?

Get over yourself. You are not "the entire world."

fear4freedom wrote:

Why cant gay marriages be called "civil unions".

Why should they be?

fear4freedom wrote:

How can %15 of the population force %85 to accept these changes? Even if is %50 support gays to marry, does that same amount support changing the definition of it?

OK. I've had enough of this fucking "WE ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF A WORD!!!!!" bullshit.

Nobody is changing the definition of the word. We are expanding the legal definition but it still means the same thing. Don't worry... no matter what your minister tells you... you won't have to have sex with your dog.

fear4freedom wrote:

Also, why is the word marriage so important to attain for gays?

More importantly... why do you give a shit? You realize that this doesn't affect you at ALL right? not at all?

You get that?

fear4freedom wrote:

Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

Just wondering!

Just like how "the negros" should be proud to have their own water fountains and lunch counters and doors on buses?

Yeah... that whole "separate but equal" thing has worked out so well.

Kel Varnsen

fear4freedom wrote:

Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

I am curious about something, if two gay people get married in their church (since my understanding is that there are some churches where gay marriage is acceptable) would it still have to be called a civil union? What about the reverse, if a heterosexual couple who weren't at all religious got married at city hall, would they be allowed to use the term marriage or would that be a civil union too?

hedonist

Kel Varnsen wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

I am curious about something, if two gay people get married in their church (since my understanding is that there are some churches where gay marriage is acceptable) would it still have to be called a civil union? What about the reverse, if a heterosexual couple who weren't at all religious got married at city hall, would they be allowed to use the term marriage or would that be a civil union too?

We're not religious and are planning on getting hitched at city hall. We'd also have no problem with it being called a civil union. Should be the same for everyone, though. Keep it simple across the board.

JimmyV

hedonist wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

I am curious about something, if two gay people get married in their church (since my understanding is that there are some churches where gay marriage is acceptable) would it still have to be called a civil union? What about the reverse, if a heterosexual couple who weren't at all religious got married at city hall, would they be allowed to use the term marriage or would that be a civil union too?

We're not religious and are planning on getting hitched at city hall. We'd also have no problem with it being called a civil union. Should be the same for everyone, though. Keep it simple across the board.

The only thing the government should be interested in is a civil union. A marriage should happen in a church. If governments cannot provide the right of marriage to all its citizens it should not be providing it to any of its citizens.

We have had gay marriage here in Massachusetts since May of 2004. It has impacted my life as a straight man not one bit.

hedonist

JimmyV wrote:

hedonist wrote:

We're not religious and are planning on getting hitched at city hall. We'd also have no problem with it being called a civil union. Should be the same for everyone, though. Keep it simple across the board.

The only thing the government should be interested in is a civil union. A marriage should happen in a church. If governments cannot provide the right of marriage to all its citizens it should not be providing it to any of its citizens.

We have had gay marriage here in Massachusetts since May of 2004. It has impacted my life as a straight man not one bit.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Government out of it altogether, though except in terms of recognizing that it IS a union - no benefits/tax deductions, etc. (never understood that) - but next of kin, property ownership and the like - should be automatic.

peacefrompaul

Unfortunately, government has already put it's grubby paws into marriage by selling licenses for such things. If it wasn't so, I'd agree... keep government out of it. Since they have, we need marriage equality. Call it what you want, but homosexuals must be allowed the option of calling their bond a marriage

Prince Of Dorkness

I've been with my husband for nearly 21 years. We got legally married in 2008 in both Canada and California and later this year, we're doing it in Washington. Next year we plan on a bit of a tour across Europe where we'll get married in a few countries along the way. All for fun, of course... We should only have to do it once.

This hasn't affected anyone but the two of us.

I'm married to my husband and I refuse to say "I'm civil unions to my partner."

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I've been with my husband for nearly 21 years. We got legally married in 2008 in both Canada and California and later this year, we're doing it in Washington. Next year we plan on a bit of a tour across Europe where we'll get married in a few countries along the way. All for fun, of course... We should only have to do it once.

This hasn't affected anyone but the two of us.

I'm married to my husband and I refuse to say "I'm civil unions to my partner."

Good for you, man and that's the way it should be... you should be able to call your partnership whatever the hell you want to call it.

know1

fear4freedom wrote:

Im fiscally conservative and socially moderate and I dont mind at all who marries who and I can hang out with gays or bi's and it dont matter to me. I am very easy going for a Conservative Christian man. I understand the rationality and I empathize with everyone's right to do whatever they feel.

However, I must say that for hundreds and even thousands of years, the entire world has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, therefore, they are also at odds for calling a gay union, a marriage. I mean, who are we to force the entire world to change the definition of marriage just because over the past few decades people wish to do so. Who are we to tell the world that we are changing the definition of marriage? Why cant gay marriages be called "civil unions". What if all civil unions got all the tax breaks that a marriage does? What if the only difference is the word itself? How can %15 of the population force %85 to accept these changes? Even if is %50 support gays to marry, does that same amount support changing the definition of it? Also, why is the word marriage so important to attain for gays? Wouldnt they be proud to have their own word(s). Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

Just wondering!

I agree.

Let people enter a civil union or some sort of binding, legal contract with one other person that gives them the same rights as current marriages do and get the government out of sanctioning marriages.

Then churches, groups, organizations, book clubs, whatever, can feel free to sanction and label "marriages" however they please.

Prince Of Dorkness

So let me get this straight...

You have no problem with same-sex couples having every right, protection, responsibility and perk that straight couples do... You want us to have the same power of attorney, the same rights of citizenship, rights of property and all that... Same tax breaks..

But you want the government out of marriage because letting those gays use the same word as you is THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT to your otherwise meaningless existence.

Tell you what... Stop being so juvenile and crying like a kid who has to share the his ball with his brother. Your arguments just make you look like a spoils brat who wants to have a special word so people know he's more special than someone else.

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

So let me get this straight...

You have no problem with same-sex couples having every right, protection, responsibility and perk that straight couples do... You want us to have the same power of attorney, the same rights of citizenship, rights of property and all that... Same tax breaks..

But you want the government out of marriage because letting those gays use the same word as you is THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT to your otherwise meaningless existence.

Tell you what... Stop being so juvenile and crying like a kid who has to share the his ball with his brother. Your arguments just make you look like a spoils brat who wants to have a special word so people know he's more special than someone else.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? If me, then you're WAY fucking off and making assumptions.

"Because letting those gays..."?

Please...talk about juvenile.

I don't think the majority of people on this thread or in this forum are thinking the way you imply.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

So let me get this straight...

You have no problem with same-sex couples having every right, protection, responsibility and perk that straight couples do... You want us to have the same power of attorney, the same rights of citizenship, rights of property and all that... Same tax breaks..

But you want the government out of marriage because letting those gays use the same word as you is THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT to your otherwise meaningless existence.

Tell you what... Stop being so juvenile and crying like a kid who has to share the his ball with his brother. Your arguments just make you look like a spoils brat who wants to have a special word so people know he's more special than someone else.

for me, getting the government out of the marriage business is to say why the fuck do I need to have a license to be married? what crazy rule is it that I have to pay 50 bucks to a government entity, 100 or more if I don't do marriage education classes, so that I can marry my wife? Bunch a bullshit.

There are other ways to do the things marriage does, there isn't a circumcision license, there isn't a bat mitzvah license, there isn't a communion license...there isn't a birthday license, yet at certain ages we are legally allowed to do certain things...where do they get off charging me to enter into any social contract whatsoever? The fact that they charge for a license to get married is EXACTLY why same sex couples have been excluded...The government gets to tell you who you can marry because they get to license you. I think they shouldn't be able to charge for them, but they should just be forced to recognize them when notarized.

it has nothing to do with taking the ball and going home for me, and before I even clicked on this thread I knew that it would come up...it is a tired argument. That isn't what I am doing when I say the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

Bentleyspop

I for one totally support gay marriage

But how come no one ever talks about gay divorce???

MotoDC

hedonist wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

So let me get this straight...

You have no problem with same-sex couples having every right, protection, responsibility and perk that straight couples do... You want us to have the same power of attorney, the same rights of citizenship, rights of property and all that... Same tax breaks..

But you want the government out of marriage because letting those gays use the same word as you is THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT to your otherwise meaningless existence.

Tell you what... Stop being so juvenile and crying like a kid who has to share the his ball with his brother. Your arguments just make you look like a spoils brat who wants to have a special word so people know he's more special than someone else.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? If me, then you're WAY fucking off and making assumptions.

"Because letting those gays..."?

Please...talk about juvenile.

I don't think the majority of people on this thread or in this forum are thinking the way you imply.

PoD, whether he likes it or not, is our resident first-hand representative of the homosexual community. When he says "those gays" in the middle of one his his vitriolic diatribes, he's probably speaking tongue-in-cheek or perhaps pretending to use the voice of whoever he's going after. Anyhow in this case I'm guessing he's talking to know1, though from what I'm reading here it doesn't seem like know1 and he are really that far apart on this particular topic.

They're both saying the gov't should recognize all civil unions and that the "marriage" term shouldn't be so [fucking] important to make it a point of contention. Where does the label "marriage" technically get applied? Does the gov't actually "recognize marriages" or does it "recognize civil unions"? Or is marriage just a term of convenience/habit which has no legal bearing?

Not sure why I've decided to try to play arbiter here. Anyhow.

hedonist

MotoDC wrote:

PoD, whether he likes it or not, is our resident first-hand representative of the homosexual community. When he says "those gays" in the middle of one his his vitriolic diatribes, he's probably speaking tongue-in-cheek or perhaps pretending to use the voice of whoever he's going after. Anyhow in this case I'm guessing he's talking to know1, though from what I'm reading here it doesn't seem like know1 and he are really that far apart on this particular topic.

They're both saying the gov't should recognize all civil unions and that the "marriage" term shouldn't be so [fucking] important to make it a point of contention. Where does the label "marriage" technically get applied? Does the gov't actually "recognize marriages" or does it "recognize civil unions"? Or is marriage just a term of convenience/habit which has no legal bearing?

Not sure why I've decided to try to play arbiter here. Anyhow.

Not sure why either, Moto...but cool beans here

As I've said many times, it should be the same all around...the term, the recognition - or lack thereof - what have you.

Anyway, if that was indeed to know1, it strikes me as unfounded, especially to someone who's typically pretty reasonable and well-thought-out, from what I've read. I mean, c'mon..."otherwise meaningless existence"?

Anyway, I'm sure most of us (gasp!) have friends, family, etc. who are gay. I guess I'm just tired of being "schooled", and unnecessarily so.

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

it has nothing to do with taking the ball and going home for me, and before I even clicked on this thread I knew that it would come up...it is a tired argument. That isn't what I am doing when I say the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

I agree, and I've only stayed out of this thread because I think the majority of us here think gay marriage should be allowed, and I 've said this over and over, I am confident that in my lifetime or soon after, the majority of US states will make it so. Its just a matter of time... so gay folks all over should just keep up the fight; they're making progress.

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

So let me get this straight...

You have no problem with same-sex couples having every right, protection, responsibility and perk that straight couples do... You want us to have the same power of attorney, the same rights of citizenship, rights of property and all that... Same tax breaks..

But you want the government out of marriage because letting those gays use the same word as you is THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT to your otherwise meaningless existence.

Tell you what... Stop being so juvenile and crying like a kid who has to share the his ball with his brother. Your arguments just make you look like a spoils brat who wants to have a special word so people know he's more special than someone else.

No. I realized later I didn't really agree with that post in its entirety.

I want government out of sanctioning marriage for anyone. I think it's silly. Even if gay marriage wasn't part of the issue, I still don't think the government should sanction it.

Using the same word doesn't matter one bit to me.

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

Who is this "you" you're addressing? If me, then you're WAY fucking off and making assumptions.

I was answering the post by know1 just above mine. I should have quoted it but in my defense I had just woken up and couldn't be arsed.

I don't think the majority of people on this thread or in this forum are thinking the way you imply.

no, they don't. And that's a good thing.

Clearly being in a same-sex relationship, I'm in full support of marriage equality.

Prince Of Dorkness

Bentleyspop wrote:

I for one totally support gay marriage

But how come no one ever talks about gay divorce???

Well, because you can't have a divorce if you're not legally married.

however... there are gay divorces and yes... it's harder for us to do that, too. Especially if we move to a state that doesn't recognize our unions. Plus we have different laws at the state and federal level.

It's a bit of a clusterfuck.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

No. I realized later I didn't really agree with that post in its entirety.

I want government out of sanctioning marriage for anyone. I think it's silly. Even if gay marriage wasn't part of the issue, I still don't think the government should sanction it.

Using the same word doesn't matter one bit to me.

Ok well then sorry for being such a dick. I can do that.

But tell me... if the government gets out of marriage altogether... who issues green cards for spouses? Who polices wether people are writing off dependents?

And how to we divide property after the death of a spouse or a divorce?

Sadly... there's really no way around it... the government DOES have to be involved at some level.

And besides... there are two different kinds of marriages already in the US... there are civil and religious marriages. The government recognizes religious marriages as civil ones... but churches are not forced to recognize civil ones.

So really... just allowing same-sex couples to have civil marriages won't change anything for churches that don't recognize them. And nobody wants to change that, either.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

There are other ways to do the things marriage does,

But no... there isn't.

While gay couples can get a few of the rights and protections by jumping through MANY legal hoops and costly lawyer fees*, there are still over 1300 rights, protections, responsibilities and perks that are ONLY available to legally married couples at the federal level and sadly... those are the ones that you most want.

So until there is legal recognition at the federal level for unmarried couples... the fight must continue.


*(I only wish it had cost us $50. Multiply that by about 1000 and that's how much we've spent on lawyer fees, contracts, air flights to renew work Visas every year, legal documents and consultations)

Loulou

peacefrompaul wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I've been with my husband for nearly 21 years. We got legally married in 2008 in both Canada and California and later this year, we're doing it in Washington. Next year we plan on a bit of a tour across Europe where we'll get married in a few countries along the way. All for fun, of course... We should only have to do it once.

This hasn't affected anyone but the two of us.

I'm married to my husband and I refuse to say "I'm civil unions to my partner."

Good for you, man and that's the way it should be... you should be able to call your partnership whatever the hell you want to call it.

Agreed!
I have many gay friends who are lovely women who mean alot to me. Everyone has the right to love who they love and be able to express that love by getting married.

Prince Of Dorkness

I mean really... how could you vote against these two?



(that's my husband Carlo in the foreground. Me blurry in the background. When we met we looked like two Backstreet Boys. Although I had the cassette of "10" in the car when we were driving to the restaurant for our first date. Now we look like.. that. But Still... how could you vote against us?)

brianlux

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I mean really... how could you vote against these two?



(that's my husband Carlo in the foreground. Me blurry in the background. When we met we looked like two Backstreet Boys. Although I had the cassette of "10" in the car when we were driving to the restaurant for our first date. Now we look like.. that. But Still... how could you vote against us?)

Backstreet Boys? Hmm- kids!

That's ok, you know you got my vote anyway.