Where are my civil rights?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Where are my civil rights?

Postby Birile » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:26 pm

--Four more years of Bush as President, with a potential opportunity to appoint an unprecedented amount of new Justices to the Supreme Court to make the highest court of my country firmly conservative for decades to come.

--11 states' citizens vote in amendments to their state constitutions making gay marriage explicitly illegal.

... I had hoped to maybe one day have the right to marry the person I love just like any other American. I knew it wouldn't happen soon, but now... maybe my daughter's generation will do what mine is too ignorant to comprehend.

I am so utterly embarrassed and disappointed.

:cry:
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:33 pm

::blink:: All the good ones... ::mutter::

I voted against making civil unions illegal, and it burns me up that there are enough ignorant people in the world that think same sex unions don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual unions that this would even HAVE to be voted on. So much for our precious separation of church and state, right?
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:42 pm

Actually, speration of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution. It is actually found in a letter wrote by T. Jefferson to a church that was pushing for their views to be included in the constitution. While some would argue that this would then be enough evidence for that aim to be in the constitution, legally it is not.

Anyway, yeah. There is no logical reason for gay marriages to be illegal. The whole "it's unnatural" argument is weak because there has been homosexual relations witnessed many times in the animal kingdom. Also, the male "G spot" is found in the anus. The prostate has more pleasure inducing nerve endings connected to it than the head of the penis. Why would god create us like that? Because he wants us to enjoy shitting? The whole "sex is for procreation" argument is weak because of the fact that heterosexuals have sex more often than not with the goal of hedonistic pleasure rather than to make a baby. Even arguments based on the bible are weak because A) most churches will say that the old testement's rules are pretty much negated by the coming of Jesus and his lessons. B) In the same chapter as the anti-homosexual comments (Leviticus, I think) they also concider wearing a beard that does not have square corners a sin. Should that be illegal? It also says that spilling your seed is a sin. Should masturbation, recreational sex, and oral sex be outlawed?

The only logical reason for this outlaw is because the powers that be are uncomfortable with homosexuals...I'll draw my own conclusions on why.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Atalan
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:35 pm

Postby Atalan » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:59 pm

Look on the bright side: All theyre really doing is making (or keeping, or whatever) it illegal for you to give money to the government to have a ceremony, then making it illegal for you to have to pay the government to dissolve that relationship.

I know there are some days that I wished hetrosexual marriages were illegal. Maybe that would curtail the generation of stupid children who grow up to be stupid adults.
Atalan
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:35 pm

Postby Atalan » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:05 pm

Kifle,
Oral sex is already technically illegal if you join the military (which isnt enforced, because they dont go to your house looking to see how youre getting it). I'm going to have to find my list of things you arent supposed to do once you join (including protest publicly, which is really how this country was founded).

Not that it matters to this thread, but I thought I would add that.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:05 pm

Kifle wrote:Should masturbation, recreational sex, and oral sex be outlawed?



Ummm... one or more of them are in many states, Oklahoma included. That joke goes that it's a misdemeanor... da more you miss, da meaner you get... but in Oklahoma it's no joke.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Auril
Staff Member - Quests
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Auril » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:14 pm

It's not just about paying for the right to be married. If your same-sex spouse dies, you do not inherit the home and possessions, in at least one state. I don't know the laws of different states and have only been informed of the law for one.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:23 pm

Ashiwi wrote:
Kifle wrote:Should masturbation, recreational sex, and oral sex be outlawed?



Ummm... one or more of them are in many states, Oklahoma included. That joke goes that it's a misdemeanor... da more you miss, da meaner you get... but in Oklahoma it's no joke.


I'm aware of this, but I have yet to see these laws be enforced for what they are. Most times it's just a way to bust prostitutes or some crap if they other charges are dropped.

Anyway, they are laws that should not be in place for no real reason. They should be taken out.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Atalan
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:35 pm

Postby Atalan » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:26 pm

I know Auril, but the biggest problem there is that family members will contest wills. Jealous and spiteful people ruin everything.
Clangeddin
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Out in Space
Contact:

Postby Clangeddin » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:27 pm

From what I heard on the various news sites regarding the ballot initiatives re: gay marriage, 10 out of the 11 that put it on the ballot only sought to define "marriage" as one man + one woman. Only the Ohio ballot explicity outlawed gay unions of any kind.

In other words (at least as I read it), there's still the possibility that the other 10 states could institute a "civil union" status for same-sex couples, with all of the same legal privileges as those given to married couples. They just couldn't call it a "marriage."

Maybe I'm wrong - it's happened before.
Clangeddin Silverbeard, Lord of the Twin Axes
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:53 pm

I don't see anything wrong with defining marriage as between a 'man and woman' as long as you allow civil unions for same sex couples. They should be given the same rights as married couples, but not special rights.
The thing that pissed me off is how some groups used lawsuits and managed to get some judges to force it down our throats such as in this lovely state. They judges made up their own laws instead of impartially ruling on the existing law. Leglislating from the bench is a dangerous thing.
Last edited by rylan on Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:56 pm

Auril wrote:It's not just about paying for the right to be married. If your same-sex spouse dies, you do not inherit the home and possessions, in at least one state. I don't know the laws of different states and have only been informed of the law for one.


Just to clarify..

The situation you describe where a same-sex partner does not inherit property and possessions would only occur in the absence of a will or trust. Its very easy for any couple in a committed relationship to see to it that their estate passes according to their wishes. However, there are probably some tax benefits regarding the estate tax that married couples enjoy and which would not be available to a gay couple. This would only matter to very wealthy couples.

And Birile, I very much sympathize with your concerns. I think its a matter of time before gay couples are given the same civil rights as anyone else. Its unfortunate that for the time being you are treated differently.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:32 am

No right exists to be married. Correct me if I'm wrong Corth, but doesn't the states create the institution of marriage. Furthermore, the state has the right to say who can be part of a legal institution like marriage. Homosexuals have no right to marriage because it is defined as between a man and a woman. I think civil unions are ok, but I don't think gays should have special rights above others.

If you think about it, most of the traditional Democratic elements probably don't like gay marriage either. This is a losing position similar to when Republicans were going wild about abortion. America isn't ready for it, and if it ever happens at all, it will be through the judicial branch unless a constitutional amendment is put in to completely prevent it.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:04 am

Imis:

You are correct. Marriage is defined by each individual state. There is no constitutional right to marriage, though an argument in favor of allowing gay marriage could possibly be made under the equal protection clause. There would certainly be more justification for such a decision than there would be for something like roe v. wade which was essentially an act of law-making by unelected judges. Notwithstanding, I would still rather see this issue eventually resolved through normal political processes, or if necessary, a Constitutional Amendment.

You are also correct that in most states, if not all, it would be politically impossible to legalize gay marriage. I have the feeling, however, that over time, that trend will reverse itself.

Moral issues are a big part of what made the Republican party succesful in this past election. The gay marriage referrendum in Ohio is probably an indirect reason why Bush won that state. For the time being, its working. But I imagine that in the coming years, while still retaining its core values, the party will need to be more tolerant towards gays. Just like the Democratic party does not reflect the values of the majority of voters now, the Republican party will find itself in a similar position in the future if it does not change with the times.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:51 am

There should be no need for "Civil Unions." It would just be a word to set people apart, yet have the same meaning and result. It's just a word to encourage this new racism much like Jim Crow laws did in the south. Remember, our supreme court decided a long time ago that separate cannot be equal, and calling one group of married people married and another civil unioned is very much separate.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:29 am

As I said, barring changing the Constitution, I think gay marriage will eventually exist. That said, if gays push it, it is extremely likely a Constitutional amendment could actually be passed now. There are times to fight and times to say its not time to fight. Now is not the time to try to legalize gay marriage if you hope to not have it outlawed through Constitutional change.
amolol
Sojourner
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:01 am

Postby amolol » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:47 am

wanna be scared now?... i vote... and i voted to stop the ban on gay marrage... alot of my friends were wanting that to be stopped... because they actually do love eachother...
i dont know what your problem is, but i bet its hard to pronounce

myspace.com/tgchef
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:48 am

Imis9 wrote:As I said, barring changing the Constitution, I think gay marriage will eventually exist. That said, if gays push it, it is extremely likely a Constitutional amendment could actually be passed now. There are times to fight and times to say its not time to fight. Now is not the time to try to legalize gay marriage if you hope to not have it outlawed through Constitutional change.


Ah, so in this country where you claim we value Freedom you recommend people stop fighting for their right to choose who they marry.

Good one.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:49 am

You have a choice of who to marry, just has to be the other sex.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:25 am

Imis9 wrote:You have a choice of who to marry, just has to be the other sex.


Which is a limited freedom...that's not freedom.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Nilan
Sojourner
Posts: 689
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Nilan » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:30 am

Just get married in secret

You, the one you love, and friends to witness it. Dont need no silly license to prove ya married. Its just a piece of paper. Anyone can change their name if they want too. None will ever say you are not married. I mean really how many times do people gotta produce a license to prove to another person they married.

Heh just a silly piece of paper in my opinion.

If ya love someone , marry em, whos to say otherwise

Nilan
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:55 am

Nilan wrote:Just get married in secret

You, the one you love, and friends to witness it. Dont need no silly license to prove ya married. Its just a piece of paper. Anyone can change their name if they want too. None will ever say you are not married. I mean really how many times do people gotta produce a license to prove to another person they married.

Heh just a silly piece of paper in my opinion.

If ya love someone , marry em, whos to say otherwise

Nilan


yes, silly paper (marriage certificate) ... but damn that paper gives SO many friggin rights ... what about the commited couple who has been together for YEARS and STILL has to file as single for tax purposes even if one partner stayed at home while the other was out in the work force ...

only trouble here Stabby, is that when same sex couples are not *legally* married, they lose shared property and monies when their partner dies. it pisses me off to no end that people are this greedy, but the less open minded dont feel the surviving partner is deserving of the share of the *marital* belongings. Family members can come in (in lieu of a will) and take everything out from under the surviving partner's feet.

the argument exists that it is not *morally right* or *normal* to have same sex marriages, or for same sex couiples to have the option to adopt .... who the hell are we to determine what is normal anymore? Leave it to Beaver was fine for the 50's ... but times, they ARE a changin ... how many *normal* families are left where dad goes to work while mom cooks and cleans and stays at home? I'd wager FEW ...

I'd also wager that there are same sex couples who are more likely candidates for adoption, because of a higher degree of mental and sociological stability than their *hetero* counterparts ... how many *straight* couples do we know who can swap sperm and be called a parent ... grr pisses me off :P
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:56 am

Just out of curiosity and so that I can learn more about this topic...for those of you that are seeking a homosexual marriage, is marriage for you
    a) an institution of religion or a religious bond between two persons in one form or another; ie something that needs to pertains directly to religion
    b) a piece of paper from the government that gives you certain rights and/or takes certain rights away; ie taxes, medical stuff, death benefits, etc.
    c) Neither religions or goverment government related, but rather a bond of undying love for the person you care about most, regardless of any other factor
    d) a mixture of both a) and b)


I'm mostly just curious what you think, because I'm really not sure what marriage really is anymore even from a hetrosexual marriage standpoint. I mean, yes I understand what the dictionary says it is, but marriage in general has become such a "joke" as it were, that it's hard to judge where this is going and what the specific wants and need of the homosexual community are in this matter.

I'm mainly looking for an answer from the horse's mouth, but I can understand if you don't want to speak up and I'd also welcome logical insight from people that know more about this than I do and can give me more insight on it. I don't want to hear verbatim quotes from the media as to why X should be done about this issue in response to my query, please as I've probably already read that crap.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv
*~~~~~~~~~~*
"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:35 pm

Dlur wrote:Just out of curiosity and so that I can learn more about this topic...for those of you that are seeking a homosexual marriage, is marriage for you
    a) an institution of religion or a religious bond between two persons in one form or another; ie something that needs to pertains directly to religion
    b) a piece of paper from the government that gives you certain rights and/or takes certain rights away; ie taxes, medical stuff, death benefits, etc.
    c) Neither religions or goverment government related, but rather a bond of undying love for the person you care about most, regardless of any other factor
    d) a mixture of both a) and b)

I'm mostly just curious what you think, because I'm really not sure what marriage really is anymore even from a hetrosexual marriage standpoint. I mean, yes I understand what the dictionary says it is, but marriage in general has become such a "joke" as it were, that it's hard to judge where this is going and what the specific wants and need of the homosexual community are in this matter.

I'm mainly looking for an answer from the horse's mouth, but I can understand if you don't want to speak up and I'd also welcome logical insight from people that know more about this than I do and can give me more insight on it. I don't want to hear verbatim quotes from the media as to why X should be done about this issue in response to my query, please as I've probably already read that crap.


Good question, Dlur. I'll respond on one of my breaks at work.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:16 pm

There are many problems if you want to marry in a church.

Here in Denmark a normal partner registration is possible among homosexuals.

But, it is not really possible in a church, mainly because the things a priest have to say according to Luthor is something with, "I now unite you as man and wife" to change those simple texts a priest have to say isn't trivial here. And that is partly why we can't marry homosexuals in a church.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:30 pm

Nilan wrote:Just get married in secret

You, the one you love, and friends to witness it. Dont need no silly license to prove ya married. Its just a piece of paper. Anyone can change their name if they want too. None will ever say you are not married. I mean really how many times do people gotta produce a license to prove to another person they married.

Heh just a silly piece of paper in my opinion.

If ya love someone , marry em, whos to say otherwise

Nilan


That's seperate but equal Nilan.

Not to mention that marriage comes with rights that would be denied if it weren't an "official" marriage.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:33 pm

Long term life partners deserve the same rights as marital partners in that they deserve health and life insurance benefits, inheritance, social security, etc, etc, etc, not to mention silly little things like allowing your life partner to help determine your course of medical care in an emergency situation.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:38 pm

Dlur wrote:Just out of curiosity and so that I can learn more about this topic...for those of you that are seeking a homosexual marriage, is marriage for you
    a) an institution of religion or a religious bond between two persons in one form or another; ie something that needs to pertains directly to religion
    b) a piece of paper from the government that gives you certain rights and/or takes certain rights away; ie taxes, medical stuff, death benefits, etc.
    c) Neither religions or goverment government related, but rather a bond of undying love for the person you care about most, regardless of any other factor
    d) a mixture of both a) and b)

I'm mostly just curious what you think, because I'm really not sure what marriage really is anymore even from a hetrosexual marriage standpoint. I mean, yes I understand what the dictionary says it is, but marriage in general has become such a "joke" as it were, that it's hard to judge where this is going and what the specific wants and need of the homosexual community are in this matter.

I'm mainly looking for an answer from the horse's mouth, but I can understand if you don't want to speak up and I'd also welcome logical insight from people that know more about this than I do and can give me more insight on it. I don't want to hear verbatim quotes from the media as to why X should be done about this issue in response to my query, please as I've probably already read that crap.


Okay, here's my response to Dlur's question:

Firstly, let me say that I can't choose any of the choices you proffered because neither one was complete or hit the nail squarely on the head. Secondly, let me say that I will not take on the responsibility of replying for all LBGT people in the world because their views are their own and--while most I've encountered think much like me--there are bound to be some who have slight variants in their viewpoints, ie. agreeing wholeheartedly with some stuff I say, but finding other stuff irrelevant or wanting to add additional points, etc.

Let me also say that I am sure to only give you a fleeting glance of my thoughts/emotions on this topic as I could wax poetic all day and still not tire or even repeat myself.

So, in a nutshell, some of the larger and more relevant points:

1) Love and commitment. Believe it or not, I've always wanted to be married. Ever since I could remember. There is something romantic and dream-inspiring about marrying someone. It's part of our culture, we see it from a very early age and we're taught early on that marriage is the epitome of love. That is something that a civil union or cohabitating just does not do. If you consider yourself a romantic, raise your hand if cohabitating with your hetero or homo partner outside of marriage is what you always dreamed of...

2) Equality. I'm glad someone mentioned the separate but equal is not equal point already. Being the self-proclaimed non-hetero in this discussion I didn't want to be the one to mention it. The supposed "equal" part of the equation is an attempt to validate the "separate" part of said equation. Is separate necessary? Or is there true logic behind it? A civil union, even if it were legalized throughout the US, when compared to marriage is like buying generic at the supermarket. The label can tell you it's just as good as the original--and in many or even most regards (as the rights and responsibilities given through civil unions would vary by state) it would be--but the taste is still a little off. So... any heteros in the room gonna ask your partners to have a civil union ceremony in lieu of marriage if it becomes legal? Anyone? Ladies, if your man asked you to have a civil union ceremony instead of a marriage ceremony would you say yes? Or would you say no? No reason for you to say no, right? After all, it's just the same as marriage...

To all those who use the argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman because that's the way it's been defined in law: The reason marriage has this definition has more to do with the fact that when the law was written it was never considered that two men or two women would want to get married. There is a lot of old language in our laws today that is generally ignored or changed because it is outdated. It is not a "special right" if two lesbians are allowed to marry. Those two women do not have more rights than any other citizen of this country simply because they are allowed to marry each other.

As far as the religious thing: I do not believe that any church should ever be forced to marry two people if they do not want to. If one of the tenets of the church is that gay sex is a sin, how could you try to force that church to marry you and your homosexual partner? That's ludicrous. Does anyone really think this is what gays expect? Is this really what people think gays believe is their right as a US citizen? Get real. Frankly, I wouldn't attend a church that didn't accept me for who I was and there are plenty of churches out there to choose from who do welcome me. So I would go there and get married if I wanted a church wedding.

3) Legal rights. This is really a subheading under equality, but it's large enough to warrant its own section. Civil unions could potentially give the exact same legal rights as a lawful marriage does, however the ones in existence today do not. There are so many sensitive areas of life in general where married couples are allowed to act on their spouse's behalf that weren't even considered when civil unions were brainstormed. It's all about shoring up loopholes. Civil unions, being a separate term and legal entity from marriage allows too many opportunities for prejudice to rear its ugly head. One bigoted person in power can easily say "Well, we only allow someone's spouse through marriage to do this. And technically, since you are not married, we cannot allow you to do this thing." It's easy to scoff and say these sorts of people don't exist but trust me, they do. And gays don't have any legal backing to defend themselves without starting a protracted legal process and crossing their fingers. Is that equality when one man has to fight for his right (even if it's legally granted through a civil union) when another man is afforded said right without hassle? And if you're sitting there thinking "well, these situations are few and far between, so it's really okay" then really all you're doing is trying to rationalize. If you believe civil unions are tolerable, why don't you think gay marriage is? If your answer has anything to do with "the legal definition of marriage" then, again, you're rationalizing and fighting a change to your way of thinking. If your answer has to do with your "religious beliefs" then I accept that but that has nothing to do with a legal gay marriage. I'm not asking to be married in your church.

4) Symbolism. Being given the right to marry whom I choose is symbolic of at the very least a tolerance for all people in this country and an affirmation that every U.S. citizen is, indeed, afforded the same rights and responsibilities and that no one can be biased against based on any subgroup they may belong to.

It's true that this country is not ready for the idea of gay marriage and it's true that in time gay marriage will be legalized. It's also true (and sickening and disheartening--see my original message) that Bush was elected largely on the basis of his stand on "moral issues." That gay marriage is considered a "moral issue" is, again, sickening and stands as proof that this country has always been afraid to shed its prejudices. It is also true that gays and the more accepting hetero population will continue to fight for true equality and against any idea based under the separate but equal heading. I am more than willing to fight, and am proud to fight. Many of my gay friends thought gay marriage would be legalized within the next couple of years. While I suppose something radical could happen and this could still happen, I have never believed it possible and still don't. I knew it would be a long road ahead. President Bush's re-election (and the Supreme Court appointments he will make in these coming 4 years) and the banning of gay marriage in 11 states (or, to paraphrase someone in this thread, the re-affirmation of the definition of marriage) makes my fight longer than it would have been otherwise.

I am sure I have not said everything that I wanted to but this all boils down to one thing:

I should not have to fight to be equal or even separate but equal.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:40 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Nilan wrote:Just get married in secret

You, the one you love, and friends to witness it. Dont need no silly license to prove ya married. Its just a piece of paper. Anyone can change their name if they want too. None will ever say you are not married. I mean really how many times do people gotta produce a license to prove to another person they married.

Heh just a silly piece of paper in my opinion.

If ya love someone , marry em, whos to say otherwise

Nilan


That's seperate but equal Nilan.

Not to mention that marriage comes with rights that would be denied if it weren't an "official" marriage.


In defense of Nilan:

I think Nilan was saying "fuck the establishment, what's in your heart is what matters." And in large part, he's right. And I've thought to do the same exact thing as he suggested many times. But anyone who knows me on the Mud knows that I speak out when I see some bullshit. Not being allowed to marry the consenting adult of my choice is bullshit. Thanks for the kind words, Nilan. :wink:
Duna
Sojourner
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:40 am
Contact:

Postby Duna » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:53 pm

Dlur wrote:Just out of curiosity and so that I can learn more about this topic...for those of you that are seeking a homosexual marriage, is marriage for you
    a) an institution of religion or a religious bond between two persons in one form or another; ie something that needs to pertains directly to religion
    b) a piece of paper from the government that gives you certain rights and/or takes certain rights away; ie taxes, medical stuff, death benefits, etc.
    c) Neither religions or goverment government related, but rather a bond of undying love for the person you care about most, regardless of any other factor
    d) a mixture of both a) and b)

I'm mostly just curious what you think, because I'm really not sure what marriage really is anymore even from a hetrosexual marriage standpoint. I mean, yes I understand what the dictionary says it is, but marriage in general has become such a "joke" as it were, that it's hard to judge where this is going and what the specific wants and need of the homosexual community are in this matter.

I'm mainly looking for an answer from the horse's mouth, but I can understand if you don't want to speak up and I'd also welcome logical insight from people that know more about this than I do and can give me more insight on it. I don't want to hear verbatim quotes from the media as to why X should be done about this issue in response to my query, please as I've probably already read that crap.


Speaking for a Hetero, I'd say a mix of b and c.. so, the rights and the undying love.

the benefits are greatly more for a married couple than a couple that lives together.. taxes - I know that married couples pay less in taxes than someone who's single.. of course you get the medical and death benefits, as well as social security.
Like Ashiwi said the part about helping to make medical desicions in an emergency, but there's also the fact that sometimes, if you aren't married, you can't go to see them in the hospital.. If your 'sig. other' were to end up in ICU for some reason.. they only let immediate family visit.
I also know, although it's now being somewhat limited, that a 'spouse' can call your insurance company(medical) and take care of business. I think they're starting to make husbands sign papers so the wifes can do such, but before you could call and talk to anyone that did business with your spouse, credit cards, loans, etc. and they would deal with you as if you were your spouse, even if your name wasn't on the credit card and such...

Oh, and Ashiwi there are alot more stay at home mom's than you realize..
Alot of women have found that staying at home for the first several years is not only more benefical for the child, but actually cheaper in the long run. I've known of several women who have quit their jobs when they had a child and stayed home with the child until the child was in school, then went back to work. If you're only making $6/hr. in the first place, most of what you earn goes to a daycare center anyways..
I'm actually a stay at home mom... Lookin for a job now, but I've been home with my kids for the last 12 years. the youngest is 7. :)
Duna
Sojourner
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:40 am
Contact:

Postby Duna » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:07 pm

bah, you posted yours while I was typing ;)

Birile wrote:Okay, here's my response to Dlur's question:

Firstly, let me say that I can't choose any of the choices you proffered because neither one was complete or hit the nail squarely on the head. Secondly, let me say that I will not take on the responsibility of replying for all LBGT people in the world because their views are their own and--while most I've encountered think much like me--there are bound to be some who have slight variants in their viewpoints, ie. agreeing wholeheartedly with some stuff I say, but finding other stuff irrelevant or wanting to add additional points, etc.

Let me also say that I am sure to only give you a fleeting glance of my thoughts/emotions on this topic as I could wax poetic all day and still not tire or even repeat myself.

So, in a nutshell, some of the larger and more relevant points:

1) Love and commitment. Believe it or not, I've always wanted to be married. Ever since I could remember. There is something romantic and dream-inspiring about marrying someone. It's part of our culture, we see it from a very early age and we're taught early on that marriage is the epitome of love. That is something that a civil union or cohabitating just does not do. If you consider yourself a romantic, raise your hand if cohabitating with your hetero or homo partner outside of marriage is what you always dreamed of...

2) Equality. I'm glad someone mentioned the separate but equal is not equal point already. Being the self-proclaimed non-hetero in this discussion I didn't want to be the one to mention it. The supposed "equal" part of the equation is an attempt to validate the "separate" part of said equation. Is separate necessary? Or is there true logic behind it? A civil union, even if it were legalized throughout the US, when compared to marriage is like buying generic at the supermarket. The label can tell you it's just as good as the original--and in many or even most regards (as the rights and responsibilities given through civil unions would vary by state) it would be--but the taste is still a little off. So... any heteros in the room gonna ask your partners to have a civil union ceremony in lieu of marriage if it becomes legal? Anyone? Ladies, if your man asked you to have a civil union ceremony instead of a marriage ceremony would you say yes? Or would you say no? No reason for you to say no, right? After all, it's just the same as marriage...

To all those who use the argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman because that's the way it's been defined in law: The reason marriage has this definition has more to do with the fact that when the law was written it was never considered that two men or two women would want to get married. There is a lot of old language in our laws today that is generally ignored or changed because it is outdated. It is not a "special right" if two lesbians are allowed to marry. Those two women do not have more rights than any other citizen of this country simply because they are allowed to marry each other.

As far as the religious thing: I do not believe that any church should ever be forced to marry two people if they do not want to. If one of the tenets of the church is that gay sex is a sin, how could you try to force that church to marry you and your homosexual partner? That's ludicrous. Does anyone really think this is what gays expect? Is this really what people think gays believe is their right as a US citizen? Get real. Frankly, I wouldn't attend a church that didn't accept me for who I was and there are plenty of churches out there to choose from who do welcome me. So I would go there and get married if I wanted a church wedding.

3) Legal rights. This is really a subheading under equality, but it's large enough to warrant its own section. Civil unions could potentially give the exact same legal rights as a lawful marriage does, however the ones in existence today do not. There are so many sensitive areas of life in general where married couples are allowed to act on their spouse's behalf that weren't even considered when civil unions were brainstormed. It's all about shoring up loopholes. Civil unions, being a separate term and legal entity from marriage allows too many opportunities for prejudice to rear its ugly head. One bigoted person in power can easily say "Well, we only allow someone's spouse through marriage to do this. And technically, since you are not married, we cannot allow you to do this thing." It's easy to scoff and say these sorts of people don't exist but trust me, they do. And gays don't have any legal backing to defend themselves without starting a protracted legal process and crossing their fingers. Is that equality when one man has to fight for his right (even if it's legally granted through a civil union) when another man is afforded said right without hassle? And if you're sitting there thinking "well, these situations are few and far between, so it's really okay" then really all you're doing is trying to rationalize. If you believe civil unions are tolerable, why don't you think gay marriage is? If your answer has anything to do with "the legal definition of marriage" then, again, you're rationalizing and fighting a change to your way of thinking. If your answer has to do with your "religious beliefs" then I accept that but that has nothing to do with a legal gay marriage. I'm not asking to be married in your church.

4) Symbolism. Being given the right to marry whom I choose is symbolic of at the very least a tolerance for all people in this country and an affirmation that every U.S. citizen is, indeed, afforded the same rights and responsibilities and that no one can be biased against based on any subgroup they may belong to.

It's true that this country is not ready for the idea of gay marriage and it's true that in time gay marriage will be legalized. It's also true (and sickening and disheartening--see my original message) that Bush was elected largely on the basis of his stand on "moral issues." That gay marriage is considered a "moral issue" is, again, sickening and stands as proof that this country has always been afraid to shed its prejudices. It is also true that gays and the more accepting hetero population will continue to fight for true equality and against any idea based under the separate but equal heading. I am more than willing to fight, and am proud to fight. Many of my gay friends thought gay marriage would be legalized within the next couple of years. While I suppose something radical could happen and this could still happen, I have never believed it possible and still don't. I knew it would be a long road ahead. President Bush's re-election (and the Supreme Court appointments he will make in these coming 4 years) and the banning of gay marriage in 11 states (or, to paraphrase someone in this thread, the re-affirmation of the definition of marriage) makes my fight longer than it would have been otherwise.

I am sure I have not said everything that I wanted to but this all boils down to one thing:

I should not have to fight to be equal or even separate but equal.


Very well said Birile :) So many of those points go for Hetero's as well.. At least those I know. :) Oh and don't feel bad about some churches not marrying you.. I was raised Catholic.. They won't marry anyone who's been divorced, and since I was married (11 yrs. ago) they've decided that if you aren't married in a church you've commited a mortal sin. I was married at the courthouse ;P
Goes to show we're all sinners, I guess :)
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:46 pm

Ashiwi wrote:Long term life partners deserve the same rights as marital partners in that they deserve health and life insurance benefits, inheritance, social security, etc, etc, etc, not to mention silly little things like allowing your life partner to help determine your course of medical care in an emergency situation.


hi5 ... agree 100%
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:13 pm

Ummm... did I say something about stay-at-home moms?
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:21 pm

Ashiwi wrote:Ummm... did I say something about stay-at-home moms?


No, Ambar did.
Duna
Sojourner
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:40 am
Contact:

Postby Duna » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:18 pm

Doh! okay so it was Ambar.. sorry :) *blush*
Well it began with an A :)
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:22 pm

I'll take being mistaken for Ambar as a compliment.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:44 pm

Dlur wrote:Just out of curiosity and so that I can learn more about this topic...for those of you that are seeking a homosexual marriage, is marriage for you
    a) an institution of religion or a religious bond between two persons in one form or another; ie something that needs to pertains directly to religion
    b) a piece of paper from the government that gives you certain rights and/or takes certain rights away; ie taxes, medical stuff, death benefits, etc.
    c) Neither religions or goverment government related, but rather a bond of undying love for the person you care about most, regardless of any other factor
    d) a mixture of both a) and b)



I'm mostly just curious what you think, because I'm really not sure what marriage really is anymore even from a hetrosexual marriage standpoint. I mean, yes I understand what the dictionary says it is, but marriage in general has become such a "joke" as it were, that it's hard to judge where this is going and what the specific wants and need of the homosexual community are in this matter.

I'm mainly looking for an answer from the horse's mouth, but I can understand if you don't want to speak up and I'd also welcome logical insight from people that know more about this than I do and can give me more insight on it. I don't want to hear verbatim quotes from the media as to why X should be done about this issue in response to my query, please as I've probably already read that crap.


In my view I would say marriage would be defined as two people who both consent to a monogamous relationship. This would better fall under choice B than anything. As it is now, marriage is more viewed as a religious agreement and institution. This is probably the reason it is under scrutiny at this point in time. I can fully understand why the Christian church would not want this to happen, and I tend to agree with them to a point. I can understand that it would be, in a sense, a blasphemous action to wed under the eyes of God and have that marriage be of a same sex couple. On the other hand, this country offers a freedom of religion. It is very easy to be considered married without having to go through any sort of christian church. This being the case, there should be absolutely no reason why, church mandate or not, that homosexuals should not be able to be a married couple in the eyes of the government rather than the church.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Silverast Rubicyn
Sojourner
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Long Branch, NJ

Postby Silverast Rubicyn » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:04 pm

This is a thread I couldn't not comment on, even if what I have to say has already been said. Wish I had more time too (I'm at work) and had seen this thread earlier.

I too was really disenheartened to see Bush re-elected because of his stance on gay marriage. We'll most likely have to wait at least 4 years for any forward movement with the gay-rights movement. And thats sad. Not to say that Kerry supported everything 100%, but Bush is a religious freak.

My opinion is this: because I can't have the same rights as everyone else, it almost makes me feel sub-human, like I'm not even a real human being, flesh and blood the same as everyone else, in the eyes of those who want to deny those rights. And its sad, and makes me feel like utter crap most of the time.

Birile really hit the nail on the head with this line: I should not have to fight to be equal or even separate but equal.

Amen brother.

-Talsor/Ed
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:41 pm

but I wasnt talking about stay at home moms per se .. that was sort of out of context ...

as far as the having to fight thing .. i agree and disagree

we have to fight for ALL rights

the vote wasnt given to blacks and women without a fight, no major decision is given without SOMEONE having to fight for it

isnt the fight worth it to see the issues won?

to see same sex marriages legalized AND recognized in ALL states, to see same sex couples being able to adopt if they meet the requirements, to see same sex couples get every single right that hetero couples get??
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:38 pm

Silverast Rubicyn wrote:My opinion is this: because I can't have the same rights as everyone else, it almost makes me feel sub-human, like I'm not even a real human being, flesh and blood the same as everyone else, in the eyes of those who want to deny those rights. And its sad, and makes me feel like utter crap most of the time.

Birile really hit the nail on the head with this line: I should not have to fight to be equal or even separate but equal.

Amen brother.

-Talsor/Ed


:cry:

Ambar wrote:but I wasnt talking about stay at home moms per se .. that was sort of out of context ...

as far as the having to fight thing .. i agree and disagree

we have to fight for ALL rights

the vote wasnt given to blacks and women without a fight, no major decision is given without SOMEONE having to fight for it

isnt the fight worth it to see the issues won?

to see same sex marriages legalized AND recognized in ALL states, to see same sex couples being able to adopt if they meet the requirements, to see same sex couples get every single right that hetero couples get??


I have always fought and will always fight for complete equality in all things for any group of people, not just the issue at hand, Ambar. And yes, long, hard fights had to be fought for and by blacks, women and every other group of people who has been the brunt of bigotry and inequality in this country. But that doesn't diminish the fact that it's a slap in the face to know that I have to fight to get the same rights that most people in this country were born with and no one ever debated those peoples' rights. No one should ever have to work harder than someone else to get the same rights.[/i]
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:12 am

yup, sweetie and many other minorities feel the same way

sad as hell isnt it :(
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:40 am

Heh, this is getting too personal so I'm out. There's a profound difference between the macro and specific examples, and there's really no benefit to arguing about opinions since they usually don't change.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:53 am

Sorry, yet another instance of me posting without finishing the thread.

I believe the problem is that most people don't care whether a gay couple is married.

Hell, I am all for it, I think the major failure has been getting those folks who say "You know what? I don't care if a gay person marries another one. . .they can love who they love." out to vote for it.

For the most part, the people opposed to gay marriage are REALLY REALLY OPPOSED to gay marriage, whereas people who are more open tend to believe that people are in general more open. Rock the vote, make those "go with the flow" people take an interest.

It is your right and it is your right to exercise it.

I'll tell you one thing, I'll vote for it.
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:36 am

All marriages should be banned, straight or not. I just think people should continue to have sex with each other and not gain 50 lbs.
Meatshield
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:46 am

Your civil rights are on my gun rack. Calm down.
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:17 pm

As a side note, just found this today.

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - A Saskatchewan court ruling Friday made the Canadian prairie province the country's seventh jurisdiction to allow homosexuals to wed.

Justice Donna Wilson sided with courts in five other provinces and one territory, saying existing marriage laws discriminate against gay couples and were unconstitutional.

The Saskatchewan ruling came after five gay couples went to court seeking the right to wed. At least one couple have said they plan to say their vows as early as this weekend.

Courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already ruled in the same way.

There are currently two couples challenging the law in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Supreme Court of Canada is in the process of evaluating a draft federal law that could make gay weddings legal from coast to coast. The high court is expected to rule next year.

The decision came after many American voters showed their disapproval over the issue as 11 states on Tuesday supported constitutional amendments rejecting legal marriage for homosexual couples.
Meatshield
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:28 pm

Birile wrote:I have always fought and will always fight for complete equality in all things for any group of people


My widdle caped crusador. You're so cute! *schmooch* :)

Now if we can just get you to wear a little more then just a mask, cape, and boots we might get somewhere. ;) *snoogie*
Asup group-says 'who needs sex ed when you got sesexe.'
Targsk group-says 'sexedse'
mount dragon
You climb on and ride Tocx'enth'orix, the elder black dragon.
You have learned something new about mount!
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:58 pm

Just a thought. I've always been cool w/ gay people (Gormal) for most of my life because my mom had a gay friend (male) and he was always nice to me (don't think dirty). I look at some of my anti-gay friends and I notice that many of them don't even have a gay friend. I'd hope that people would just come out of the closet and maybe the dumbasses who voted no because it's "wrong" to them will finally realize that it isn't. Gayness is ancient! Back to the Greeks and shit. Yea I'm in class, just a thought.
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Viclor Voddyn
Sojourner
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:13 am

Postby Viclor Voddyn » Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:09 am

Birile wrote:I have always fought and will always fight for complete equality in all things for any group of people


There always has been always will be those that are not so-called "equal" unfortunately.

Only argument that can stand up to non-gay rights, is God says its BAD.
But I'm talking politically, my own religious beliefs are an entirely different matter.

Personally, I wouldn't like to see "I pronounce you Husband & Husband", when I think about it I get a really sick feeling. But, I don't have to look or think about it do I?

If it were up to me, I'd let them marry etc., just because I don't like it doesn't mean I have the right to infringe on others rights.

On another note I wouldn't go blaming bush about gay rights, I think the states voted how they wanted to, regardless of his stand point on the matter.

Just my .02
Oghma responds to your petition with 'then you'll have to give me your credit card numbers, ban
k accounts, and shoe size.'

Oghma responds to your petition with 'but we'll wait until you hit 40 first'
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:02 am

Viclor Voddyn wrote:Only argument that can stand up to non-gay rights, is God says its BAD.


yeah out of context and all ..

who has had a person to person talk with God lately?

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests