It’s Just My Opinion

In the news today several states have started or enacted legislatureto ban same sex marriages. This is a giant step back for civil rights. My older brother was gay and lived with the same guy for over 20 years, there wills gave the other everything but the state would not recognize them as a couple. My brother fought for gay rights his whole life, actively seeking understanding between the straight and gay community. I admire my brother who is gone now so others must take up the fight. Not only the gay community but people that can look beyond predigests and bring all members of this country into a true United States.

See U.S. National – AP

Friday March 5th 2004

By Michael Hill, Associated Press Writer

The struggle continues for equality in the land of the free and home of the brave.

But It’s just my opinion

It’s Just My Opinion

I have to go along with River on this one despite the fact he's not a iMac user.

This nation has always been about accepting minorities as equals whether it was based on sex, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, natural origin or sexual preference. It's all the same. If you are religious: we are all children of one God. If you are not religious: we are equal before the vastness of the Cosmos.

Between 1861-1865 we fought for the right of African Americans to be free. Between 1939-1945 we fought for the rights of people not to live under fascist oppression and to prevent a further Holocaust.

Unfortunately there have been other genocides: Rwanda, Armenia, Cambodia, but we have to keep fighting to spread the word that all men are brothers, we are all of one family of mankind. And we are all equal or at least we strive for that goal.

We ALL need to fight for Gay Rights and Gay Equality like our ancestors fought for their righteous principles. We have to join together as a nation, as a people to win justice for all.

United We Stand in victory; Divided We Fall in defeat.

We Are Our Brother's and Our Sister's Keeper

MacTheWolf

In my state, the state constitution calls out that "marriage" is a union between man and woman. It always has. Changing that is very difficult.

It would be much easier, here, to institute a new joining of people rather than to try to change the very definition of the word marriage or the state constitution.

Pairage, civil-union, partnership, whatever. We need to get this into society and culture, and accepted by law.

Don't get hung up by trying to redefine a word that has been defined one way for centuries - make a new word! Go around the bastards! Flank 'em!

Laws can change, really. Heck, in this state 'mixed marraiage' (miscegnation, people of two different races) was illegal until the mid '60's (and we're not even CLOSE to the South ... ). That was fixed.

We need to fight to get all our brothers and sisters the rights, protections, and appreciation they deserve and need. Each of us can probably only do a small part, but we each need to do that part. Together we can win, really.

Tom (Yes I'm straight, so? )

Let's stop and think about gay marriage for a moment.

Not everyone here may be familiar with the intricacies of weddings, you know!

Weddings lead to bills. There's the Minister and his fee. The fee for the facilities, the reception hall, the food, the flowers, the catering staff, the clean-up people. Rental cars, maybe, and don't forget the photographer and the photo lab. The tux rental and dressmaker folks charge a fee, too.

There's a lot to pay for there!

And later on, the divorce lawyers make money off of it!

All in all, it's good for the economy, what with all of those jobs it will create!

And of course, etiquette demands that in gay marriages, the father of the bottom pays for the wedding.

TB

I always believed that marriage, in an unequal era for women, was indulged mainly to help to protect the rights of the wife and, of course, the children.

Accordingly, outside of those very few gay families who have children, I don't really see the point, other than for the symbolism in respect of the union.

By the way, shall we also now have gay divorces & all that that entails?

PUEROS

pueros wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:15 am By the way, shall we also now have gay divorces & all that that entails?

Well, yes.

If a part of the purpose of gay (civil union/pairage/contract) is to allow the legalities of bequest and inheritance and such to take effect in the union, then there needs also to be a way to end that union. In traditional marriage that ending is accomplished by divorce.

The reasons divorces can get so complex and ugly are many, and those same dynamics will apply to gay couples once the legal union of gay couples becomes a more generally accepted thing.

When inheritance, investments, mortages, bills, families, and all the rest become hoplessly intertwined they are dificult to seperate - especially when there are often very deep emotions also stirred up.

So, if we are to accept the legal joining of gays into family-unit couples, and grant all the niceties that come with that, there has to be a matching way to dissolve that: Divorce.

How could it be any other way?

Tom

H'YELLO!

Y'all missin' th' point, here, fellers.

The point is that the Gay folks have a valid 1st Amendment issue here. The only argument that is valid now is a religious argument, and that violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The first Appellate with a significant case is likely to win.

They know that the first challenge to the rule against Gay marriage has so much case law behind it with equal rights and anti-establishment of religion rulings that the Supreme Court would probably uphold it. For consistancy's sake, they would not have a logical choice otherwise. Hell, they probably have already had the straw poll in the Supreme Court. I mean, on those hunting trips they must be talking about Conservative somethings...

That is why they want the Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so badly.

Gays deserve the same rights to demonstrate legal recognition of their affection the same as STR8 people have and there is a SERIOUS chance that the first court case will cave in the house of cards that is set up now.

The advantages to Gays are many, health insurance, spousal life insurance, Social Security and Medicare to name but a few. Remember Miscegenation was legal until 1967. I could not have even married a BLACK woman, not even Halle Berry.

Yeah, like she would have an old jar licker like me...heh, heh, heh!

But more importantly, the DIVORCE point is well-taken.

What would happen if the Gay DIVORCE rates turned out to be in the SINGLE DIGITS, compared to the current divorce rate being (enjoyed?) now by the STR8 people of 50% or so?

What would that tell the world about Gay Culture, family stability regarding Adoption, and the general scheme of things.

So much to lose with just this little thing.

A-1

We're having the same problem in Australia. Our fearless leader John Howard, has jumped on the anti gay marriage bandwagon and is banging the tired old drum about how allowing gays to marry would sully the sanctity and tradition of the glorious institution of marriage.

Now when industrial chemicals wash up on a beach and destroy the wildlife, it's obvious that sullying and pollution has taken place.

What I'd like to know is just exactly what these people think the sacred institution of marriage will be sullied and polluted by if gays are allowed to get married? Exactly how will it be diminished?

I really would like an explanation. A coherent one.