Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 28

• 0%

  david_nwpa9 months, 2 weeks ago

  We have become a nation of opinion polls. We are polled, surveryed and questioned to the n-th degree. For all those questions, all we really know about one another is that some still have no problem with preventing some people from being legally married, and some people think being gay is by choice.

  Reply

  12 Replies

  • 0%

    jaern9 months, 2 weeks ago

    This is good news. I remember a few years ago when most people were against Gay civil unions. I know its slow, but it is coming.

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      bobo-in-texas9 months, 2 weeks ago

      Why let the good be the enemy of the perfect? Take civil unions now, the American people are ready for it. Then when the majority seees that none of the horrible things predicted/feared don't come to pass, marriage will be a simple progression.

      The all or nothing approach is the anti-marriage forces best friend. It only results in state constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage (and in a large percentage of cases civil unions) which sets the whole process back by years, if not decades.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        hamy9 months, 2 weeks ago

        But would you accept being looked at as a second class citizen?

        Would you accept being told that you have to wait in line while the REALLY married people get served ahead of you?

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          marlenebomer9 months, 2 weeks ago

          I agree with you, Hamy!

          MLK and his colleagues certainly didn't stand to wait for society to catch up to the idea of equal treatment under the law when it came to race and national origin, why should we??

          In fact, when fearful black "leaders" begged MLK to wait until the time was right, he more or less told them either to get on the bus or let it leave them behind.

          We have our own version in the form of a wealthy gay male elite, who cower whenever drag, trans and other gender warriors are mentioned, because they've tried to cultivate a particular image, and have forgotten in that if it weren't those of us who didn't fit perfectly into the old "Castro clone" body and masculinity mold, they wouldn't be where they are today!

          Reply
        • 0%

          bobo-in-texas9 months, 2 weeks ago

          This all or nothing attitude is what has passed anti-marriage/ anti-civil union amendments in dozens of states. That has guaranteed 2nd class status in those states for many, many years to come.

          Why would you want to help the fundis promote their agenda?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            hamy9 months, 2 weeks ago

            That all or nothing attitude is what caused the riots at Stonewall. If you stand up for partial citizenship, then how can we come back later and say, "oh now we want full citizenship." They will say that we should be lucky to get what we got.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              bobo-in-texas9 months, 2 weeks ago

              I ask my question again. Why would you want to help the fundis promote their agenda?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                hamy9 months, 2 weeks ago

                And I answer your question with another question. Why fight for partial rights?

                Reply
  • 0%

    hamy9 months, 2 weeks ago

    Umm...I smoke and I think that banning smoking is ridiculous. In Minneapolis alone it has cut the entertainment industry's capital by 30% in only two years. It is ridiculous and unconstitutional to tell people where and when they can smoke.

    Your argument is moot

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      bobo-in-texas9 months, 2 weeks ago

      It would be moot if the smoking bans were repealed but they won't be so your opinion in this case is what's moot.

      Reply
  • 0%

    StarLord9 months, 1 week ago

    Difference -

    Smoking: harms others.

    Gay relationship - harms no-one.

    The first is a clear case of action required, because people who do not choose to smoke are being penalised by those who do. The second is not a case of action required - it doesn't affect anyone who isn't directly in the relationship.

    Reply
  • 0%

    memestryker8 months, 4 weeks ago

    Darth, I agree with StarLord--smoking is an addiction and it also dramatically negatively affects people with medical conditions such as asthma.

    Scientific evidence that gender and sex occur on various continuums (both physiologically and psychiatrically) continues to pour in, and various phenotypical and genetic markers have already been identified. You are comparing a habit that adversely affects the very air people breathe to what appears to mostly be a genetic predisposition.

    Reply
• 0%

  jordan119 months, 2 weeks ago

  It's a step in the right direction, anyway.

  Reply
• 0%

  bobo-in-texas9 months, 2 weeks ago

  Don't be stupid. However that may not be an option for you.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    david_nwpa9 months, 2 weeks ago

    Remarkably joe sixpack, I did not snitch on you. I am not sure how or why your comment was stricken from the record. However, your comments are generally the same, and quite frankly they do not amount to a logical or reasonable level of discourse. Having said that, by all means, continue your insults toward gays and lesbians. You have the freedom of speech, and I for one will defend that right.

    Reply
• 0%

  nahual9 months, 2 weeks ago

  I honestly dont understand what is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage".

  As far as I can figure out this debate,gays want legal marital status as recognized by the State.Thus a "civil union" should suffice.

  I dont know whether gays are also seeking recognition of their relationships by the Church, whose dogma defines "marriage" as the blessed union between a male and a female.

  IMHO, the essence of the argument lies in whether a "civil union" and a "marriage" are one and the same thing.

  IF the State recognizes a "civil union" between citizens of the same gender as legal and the parties involve choose to define that "civil union" as a "marriage", I dont see how this runs into a conflict with the teachings of the Church.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 0%

    hamy9 months, 2 weeks ago

    What is really silly about this is that being recognized by the State as a "civil union" will take new legislation that has to be drafted and ratified and the over a thousand rights communicated by marriage have to be spelled out for civil unions as well. If they just allow the verbage already existing to apply to everyone, then they save money and time. It's simple economics. It also means that in some laws and benefits, they are specifically attached to the word "marriage." And if we are not married, we will not get those specific legal benefits.

    Reply
  • 0%

    jordan119 months, 2 weeks ago

    I honestly dont understand what is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage".>>>>>

    For the purposes of legal perks, there is none really. The word 'marriage' is an emotional issue. Every person I know who is homosexual would welcome a civil union status, that affords them the same legal protections as other couples have.

    >>

    Some homosexual people want to be married within their religious beliefs. Some churches honor that already, & have married them. Where things get sticky, is government is trying to interfere with the right of those churches to conduct their business separate from 'state' intrusion. It's illegal, Constitutionally, to tell churches they can't marry whomever they wish.

    Reply
  • 0%

    david_nwpa9 months, 2 weeks ago

    As far as religion is concerned, some churches provide marriage within their communal body; hence, religious marriage is not the real battle. Civil unions are in theory supposed to be the equivalent of marriage. However, numerous state courts see the terms marriage and spouse on a legal document and leap to the conclusion that the document cannot apply to gay couples, because they cannot "legally marry." In practice, numerous companies discriminate in New Jersey and Vermont where civil unions do exist. They are a step closer, but still unequal.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      marlenebomer9 months, 2 weeks ago

      True! There have already been attempts in other states to recognize Vermont CUs and and have failed in the courts, because the judges refuse to recognize them.

      *Only* when there's a legal same-sex married couple (Massachusettes' are limited due to a 1913 law which has been upheld) denied recognition in another state either during a family visit or traveling on vacation, will the issue be truly debated.

      Reply
  • 0%

    lvrofwolves9 months, 2 weeks ago

    For a man and woman to get married who have no affiliation with any religion/church who get married at lets say-- the beach..they are still called married. For a couple to decide to never have children, they are still called married. For a man and woman who marry for convenience, and many other reasons other then what it's traditionally for..all called marriage!! it's a word, it means the same thing, 2 people made a commitment to each other LEGALLY! church is separate and not necessary as far as all the legalities. The church does not provide any legal rights, it doesn't even provide the marriage license. Only blessing people actually need, is the 'blessing' from the government, they are the ones responsible to hand out EQUAL rights, not any religious establishment.

    Call it what it is, marriage.

    Reply
  • 0%

    memestryker8 months, 4 weeks ago

    The word and its meaning. And it's a word with a long history and a trigger word for many. It would be nice if the gay community could coin a better term than "civil union" that also is different from "marriage." The religious zealots aren't going anywhere, and the word really was already taken, so I'm with BoBo. Find another word that doesn't set them off.

    Reply
• 0%

  Harbeas9 months, 2 weeks ago

  I only hope that the polls continue to reflect that most people reject marriage for two men or two women. Accept the civil union concept and let it go. The church, the dictionary and most states define marriage as a union between a MAN AND A WOMAN!

  Reply
• 0%

  david_nwpa9 months, 2 weeks ago

  Harbeas, do allow me to explain that the Constitution has a clause which grants each of the states, the "full faith and credit" of the laws in all the other states. Without DOMA, the gay marriages in Massachusetts would now be legal in the other 49 states based on that clause and the 14th Amendment. Given enough time and lawsuits, eventually gay marriages will become law. Most people in 1950 did not believe in interracial marriages. Those people were and still are bigots. Harbeas, you are no better than they.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    bobo-in-texas9 months, 2 weeks ago

    "Without DOMA, the gay marriages in Massachusetts would now be legal in the other 49 states"

    Thanks Bill Clinton for both DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

    "Given enough time and lawsuits, eventually gay marriages will become law."

    Really. If this goes to the Supreme Court, do you really think that they'll rule in favor of gay marriage?

    This is a political battle for hearts and minds which we are winning. The courts are the fundis only hope of stopping marriage equality. Why be their accomplices?

    Reply
• 0%

  Harbeas9 months, 2 weeks ago

  David, it appears that your definition of a bigot is one who disagrees with you and the rest of the gay community. Let's see now the definition for a bigot -- someone obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own beiefs creed or party. Seems to me that pretty well describes the gay community's pitch. We are called bigots because we don't buy your definition of marriage. Our position is based on the religious, dictionary and the states definition of marriage. Yours is based on a definition you demand that we accept. We are not the bigots!

  Reply
• 0%

  darkell3 months, 2 weeks ago

  It's a step in the right direction.

  Reply