Rhode Island moves toward marriage equality

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.

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

No worries.

I'm saying let ANY 2 PEOPLE enter into a government recognized contract that gives them all those privileges, and let the individuals or churches or supper clubs or whatever decide what they want to call that partnership.

comebackgirl

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?)

Definitely have my vote (even before you mentioned listening to "10")

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

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.

You have mine as well

hedonist

Someone in that photo - not naming names! - looks like they haven't had their coffee yet.

In this particular case, my "yes" vote is conditioned on getting the surly one two or three cups o'joe

(and if it really is necessary to echo earlier thoughts...NO. Love is love, just let it be.)

JimmyV

I have never gotten the chance to vote on this and hopefully never will as it has been legal for almost a decade. But if that ever changes you have my vote and my support.

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

Someone in that photo - not naming names! - looks like they haven't had their coffee yet.

Sadly, no. I always look like that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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'm late to this thread and I realize the thread has taken a positive turn (nice picture Prince even though you do need a cup of coffee). But I feel I want to address the post I have quoted. The first sentence of this post seems to be a disclaimer and attempts to soften the remainder of the post which, in my opinion, reflects a serious level of disdain for the gay community and an attitude that desperately needs to be re-shaped.

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

Weak. The world has evolved despite efforts from people in possession of such attitudes to prevent it from doing so. Why would the preservation of the definition of marriage have any bearing at all in your life? Do you think the world couldn't deal with that? No. I think you have expressed such because a gay marriage isn't really a marriage given your easy going, Conservative, Christian beliefs. Regardless, I'm sure the gay community really appreciates that you "understand the rationality and [...] empathize with everyone's right to do whatever they feel." How very noble and generous to tolerate something you simply fail to understand.

Can they find pride in "civil union" or something else?

For me, this actually reads like this: go do what you want behind closed doors where I can't see you and your behaviours. As much as we say we accept the gay 'community', we truly don't and we'll remind you of this fact by forcing you to develop another term for your unions just so you know this and we can keep distinguishing 'right' from 'wrong'.

I truly hope people who subscribe this line of thinking re-think this subject. I can honestly say (with some level of shame) that in my much younger years, without the proper guidance and education, I felt similar to you. Forgiving myself: I just didn't know any better and was surrounded by people who felt the same. Fortunately, with the right support mechanisms, I overcame these ill-formed beliefs and have become much better for doing so. My children will not grow up as I did. Given I was once there, I have hope for anyone, but an open mind is critical for such attitudes to evolve.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

There are other ways to do the things marriage does,

But no... there isn't.

:fp:

so there is only one way to do things huh?

Kel Varnsen

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. I

The more that I think about it the "tradition" argument makes no sense either, since the whole concept of two adults who love each other making their own choice to get married, and then one of them proposing with a ring, and then them getting married with the option of a divorce if they don't want to be married is hardly traditional. Traditionally weddings were arranged things usually by the parents of the couple and they were more like political or business arrangements (with dowries and that sort of thing). Hell if you go back far enough one guy with a bunch of wives was traditional ( I believe it shows up all over the place in the bible). So that kind of argument doesn't really hold up.

Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. I got married in 2009 and the only difference it made to me was the fact that when I filled out the form to apply for a marriage licence instead of the fields where we wrote our names saying Bride and Groom they said something like Applicant 1 and Applicant 2, which means we had to decide whose name to write first. Other than that it has had no effect on my life and my marriage.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

There are other ways to do the things marriage does,

But no... there isn't.

:fp:

so there is only one way to do things huh?

Legally, yes.

There are about 1300 rights, protections, responsibilities, perks and privileges that are ONLY available to married couples at the federal level and there are no other ways to get them. I'm not sure how else to explain that. But the way the system is set up, marriage provides things that there are NOT other ways to do.