At least Prop 8 passed..

Commy

j3trowkill wrote:

I voted no on Prop 8, I have a 1 year old daughter, I think I can manage explaining her what this is all about.

yeah wasn't that like 50/50 anyway? it just passed...saying all of cali is responsible is hard to believe...

NOCODE#1

ReleaseMe... wrote:

some people still have their heads on straight thank goodness

dont you mean thank god?


like Palin said, God will make the right choice on the 4th.

PJ_Saluki

Here's an interesting take from Johnathan Rauch on the New York Times' Nov. 7 "Opinionater" blog.

mammasan

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Here's an interesting take from Johnathan Rauch on the New York Times' Nov. 7 "Opinionater" blog.

The author makes some very good points. My oldest brother is gay and he and I have had this discussion before. In my opinion the gay community is going about this the wrong way. Those that oppose gay marriage do so because it states in the bible that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God. So be it, if that is the case then the federal government nor state government have any right getting involved in marriage since it is an institution of the church. Use their own words against them. The government then has no right to issue marriage licenses as it would be in direct conflict with the separation of church and state. All couples then, hetero or homosexual, when then be issued a civil union by their respective states.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

The author makes some very good points. My oldest brother is gay and he and I have had this discussion before. In my opinion the gay community is going about this the wrong way. Those that oppose gay marriage do so because it states in the bible that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God. So be it, if that is the case then the federal government nor state government have any right getting involved in marriage since it is an institution of the church. Use their own words against them. The government then has no right to issue marriage licenses as it would be in direct conflict with the separation of church and state. All couples then, hetero or homosexual, when then be issued a civil union by their respective states.

i disagree.
i do NOT think the church has the right to the term 'marriage'....and why should we all have to bend over backwards to accommodate the religious? it think it is symbolic and important for homosexuals to have rights to marriage just as heterosexuals. as of right NOW, heterosexuals can go to the courthouse and get a legal marriage, outside the church. no one balks at that. no one is pressing religious institutions to perform homosexual marriages, not in the least. we are looking for LEGAL rights. it may be semantics, but sometimes.....words ARE important. i do not believe we all should bend to the will of the religious, or those gender biased towards marriage. just my opinion of course....but i say keep fighting the good fight. it IS the right of all.

polaris

decides2dream wrote:

i disagree.
i do NOT think the church has the right to the term 'marriage'....and why should we all have to bend over backwards to accommodate the religious? it think it is symbolic and important for homosexuals to have rights to marriage just as heterosexuals. as of right NOW, heterosexuals can go to the courthouse and get a legal marriage, outside the church. no one balks at that. no one is pressing religious institutions to perform homosexual marriages, not in the least. we are looking for LEGAL rights. it may be semantics, but sometimes.....words ARE important. i do not believe we all should bend to the will of the religious, or those gender biased towards marriage. just my opinion of course....but i say keep fighting the good fight. it IS the right of all.

i think the point is what battle is most important? ... if the primary purpose is to gain the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couple receives - then they need to focus on that and not the symbolic nature of a word that the religious zealots are holding onto with dear life ... at the end of the day - whether the legal term is civil union or whatever - people will refer to a gay couple as being married ... that's the only word for it ...

choosing to fight the definition of the word "marriage" is a much harder battle to win imo ... the zealots have a lot of money to fight this battle but focusing on equal and human right issues is a much harder to defend from the zealot side ...

i agree with you wholeheartedly in that no one group should own that word however, i think first and foremost is to get the legal recognition of the union and to be afforded the same rights as every other couple ...

decides2dream

polaris wrote:

i think the point is what battle is most important? ... if the primary purpose is to gain the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couple receives - then they need to focus on that and not the symbolic nature of a word that the religious zealots are holding onto with dear life ... at the end of the day - whether the legal term is civil union or whatever - people will refer to a gay couple as being married ... that's the only word for it ...

choosing to fight the definition of the word "marriage" is a much harder battle to win imo ... the zealots have a lot of money to fight this battle but focusing on equal and human right issues is a much harder to defend from the zealot side ...

i agree with you wholeheartedly in that no one group should own that word however, i think first and foremost is to get the legal recognition of the union and to be afforded the same rights as every other couple ...

i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!

polaris

decides2dream wrote:

i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!

well ... if it's the difference between winning and losing ...

but yeah - i agree 100% ... it just goes to show how much further we have to go ...

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

i understand....and agree, to a point. however, if they are going to battle for it....and even getting 'civil unions' will be a battle, why not go for the full prize? i do not want to see our citizens kowtow to religious groups, it should have ZERO bearing. speration of church and state...yada, yada, yada. hell, gay marriage is legal in MA. it CAN be done! hey, if the vast majority of gays want to support civil unions as their choice, i am all for it! however, if they want marriage, i am all for it too! however, bottomline...it just pisses me off b/c this IS a civil rights issue, plain and simple....and while we have fought well with the gender issue, the color issue...for whatever reason the sexual orientation issue seems to be the most difficult. i'm sorry, but i do not believe ANY of us should have to bend our own freedoms to cater to the religious. that is NOT what our governemnt was founded on. so yea...none too eloquently, but....FUCK THAT!

Because they have a far greater chance of winning the battle for civil unions than they do marriage. besides government really has no right to get involved in marriage.

decides2dream

polaris wrote:

well ... if it's the difference between winning and losing ...

but yeah - i agree 100% ... it just goes to show how much further we have to go ...

hey, i am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. as i said, i 100% support whatever the homosexuals want in that regard. my only 'point' is they DO have the right to want MARRIAGE, and it ulitmately is their battle to decide what they most want. i support whatever choice they make.


and HELL YES...we certainly do!



btw - i have a read alot about this topic on this board lately, lots of threads, etc...and someone said that IF homosexuals went and got married in MA and then returned to any other state...that the marriage would HAVE to be recognized b/c states must respect marriage licenses from everywhere. i honestly don't know if this is true or not...and it certainly is no 'solution'...but if it IS true, i think a massive amount of gay marriages happening in MA and then going elsewhere...would just prove how ridiculous it all is to 'ban' it. just a thought.....

mammasan wrote:

Because they have a far greater chance of winning the battle for civil unions than they do marriage. besides government really has no right to get involved in marriage.

i understood your pov...and i clearly expressed mine. obviously, i politely agree to disagree.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

i understood your pov...and i clearly expressed mine. obviously, i politely agree to disagree.

And that's fine but it's just my opinion that you have to fight the battles you know you can win.

AmentsChick

NOCODE#1 wrote:

like Palin said, God will make the right choice on the 4th.

I just lol'd at that.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

And that's fine but it's just my opinion that you have to fight the battles you know you can win.

they won in MA...so it CAN happen.

AmentsChick

mammasan wrote:

And that's fine but it's just my opinion that you have to fight the battles you know you can win.

Hmm...excellent point. It's a good thing African Americans never fought to end discrimination and intolerance...because they DEFINITELY would've been wasting their time.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

they won in MA...so it CAN happen.

MA is a very liberal state but even other liberals states like California and New Jersey have had a tough time passing those laws. I'm not saying that same sex couples shouldn't enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals because they most certainly do. But at some point you have to change your tactics especially if your current tactics aren't netting results.

Also as I stated the government, technically, has no business getting involved in marriage. They only reason they do get involved is for tax purposed so, again technically, they should only issue certificates of civil union not marriage. By presenting the argument this way you present it as a constitutional issue and same sex couples will then attain the same rights as heterosexual couples. Who fucking cares what it's called as long as you are treated equally.

mammasan

AmentsChick wrote:

Hmm...excellent point. It's a good thing African Americans never fought to end discrimination and intolerance...because they DEFINITELY would've been wasting their time.

Mock my argument all you want but legally it's the best chance they have. the only ammunition the anti same sex marriage crowd has is religion. Take that away from them and they don't stand a chance to appose.

Also whether you want to accept this fact or not the struggle for same sex marriage is not the same as the Civil Rights struggle. Homosexuals can still do just about everything that heterosexuals do, including getting married, just not the person of their choice. This makes it a much harder and more complicated fight. I don't like this fact, and you probably don't either, but that is the case.

AmentsChick

mammasan wrote:

Homosexuals can still do just about everything that heterosexuals do, including getting married, just not the person of their choice.

This is EXACTLY my problem. Why shouldn't they marry the person of their choice?? This to me is the bottom line on this issue.

FiveB247x

Discrimination is tolerated when a majority of people for whatever the reason find it acceptable. It used to be blacks, minorites and women - now it's gay people. We live in an ignorant society.

AmentsChick wrote:

This is EXACTLY my problem. Why shouldn't they marry the person of their choice?? This to me is the bottom line on this issue.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

MA is a very liberal state but even other liberals states like California and New Jersey have had a tough time passing those laws. I'm not saying that same sex couples shouldn't enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals because they most certainly do. But at some point you have to change your tactics especially if your current tactics aren't netting results.

Also as I stated the government, technically, has no business getting involved in marriage. They only reason they do get involved is for tax purposed so, again technically, they should only issue certificates of civil union not marriage. By presenting the argument this way you present it as a constitutional issue and same sex couples will then attain the same rights as heterosexual couples. Who fucking cares what it's called as long as you are treated equally.

you said they need to focus on battles they can win. i merely gave you an example of them actually winning. they HAVe had results. maybe they need to rethink strategy, but that does NOT meant they should abandon their ultimate goal imo.


as to marriage and goverment, again...a difference of opinion. i DO believe the government has the right to be in the business of marriage. i do NOT see why the word should only be used for religious unions, WHO designated that it was first and foremost a religious term? and right now, we HAVE legal marriage...so why should we do away with it to appease religious groups? so then, i do personally believe that gays have every right to fight for MARRIAGE. it's their CHOICE to fight for what they want. obviously, if you disagree...so be it.....but i happen to agree with their stance. me, i do CARE what it it is called...b/c for me, it's the principle. the religious should NOT get to decide what kinds of unions are marriages.

AmentsChick

FiveB247x wrote:

Discrimination is tolerated when a majority of people for whatever the reason find it acceptable. It used to be blacks, minorites and women - now it's gay people. We live in an ignorant society.

Agreed....but it does make it suck any less.