30 years for marriage equality?

[Aviator1976]

What-- gay folk vote gayly?

Do they gay walk their dog, gay wash their dishes, put gay gas in their gay car, put a gay paycheck in the gay bank, gay watch TV?

There is only ONE reason why gay people vote differently than fundies right now, and that is to attain the civil rights which the Xtian right wishes to withhold from them. The Log Cabin republicans are an illustration of that.

Civil rights should never be a matter of popular vote. Other things should be.

So gays are not a monolithic voting block but religious people are? That pretty much says it all.

 

[PressNightly]

Further proof that you are an ass.

How so?

The founding fathers of this nation, who even if they were christian, were sons of the enlightenment and made sure to enshrine the ideals of the enlightenment in the declaration and later the articles of confederation, and later carried those ideas into the US Constitution (and our treaty with Tripoli).

They advocated violent rebellion against any governement who failed to meet a persons needs and made a specific point to separate religious morality from governement legality.

Give me one argument against same sex marriage that doesn't have its roots in religion. Just one, one argument that can not be logically refuted and I'll yield!

Since there are none I would ask you to leave by the East Door and take up residence in England where they still have a nationalized church (but a higher percentage of athiest/agnostic citizenship strangely).


EDIT:

So gays are not a monolithic voting block but religious people are? That pretty much says it all.

Liberty University was founded for the express purpose of training right wing conservatives to take positions of power in government. The religious right has gone to great financial and personal expense to promote the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms even thought multiple federal courts have ruled that creationism is not science.

The christian right has formed into a voting block whether you like it or not, they have abused their protections as a non profit organization and insuated themselves into the political arena, and yes as a whole they vote as a group.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So gays are not a monolithic voting block but religious people are? That pretty much says it all.

Point to an Xtian fundamentalist preacher that stands up for civil rights for gay folk. Or a Catholic leader. Or a Baptist, or Mormon one.

Religious leaders try very very hard to make their flocks into monolithic blocks. They never stop trying, and they are, therefore, somewhat successful at doing so. They threaten their congregations with hellfire, and bribe them with heaven. And we see thousands of people reacting like the sheep they have been taught to be, voting like monoliths.

You know that quite well.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Religious leaders try very very hard to make their flocks into monolithic blocks. They never stop trying, and they are, therefore, somewhat successful at doing so. They threaten their congregations with hellfire, and bribe them with heaven. And we see thousands of people reacting like the sheep they have been taught to be, voting like monoliths.

You know that quite well.

This is a phenomenon that I wouldn't have believed if someone had told me about it, but I've seen it in Texas with some of the dumb-ass laws they pass, like the one on gay marriage several years ago. I meet people who seem reasonable and friendly in most respects (Southerners can be so sweet), but will turn around and vote this shit into law with pride, just because their pastor tells them to.

And I've overheard people talking about it, too. People can really be such a strange mix of good and evil that way. But that's the human condition, which manifests itself in such ugly ways on this issue in particular.

The most galling thing for me when that amendment to the state constitution was approved? I didn't have a vote. I was impotent to stop them.

 

[samanthaswitch]

So, another user posted this in a thread about POTUS coming out in support of marriage equality.



It really took me aback. Yes I was aware that Romney has said he supports a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage, however I suppose I just hadn't thought of it in this context before. Wondering if this is how the GBLT community is viewing the upcoming election.

I think expecting Obama to actually lift a finger to protect same sex marriages is wishful thinking. He made his speech to garner votes from the GLBT community and he did it very carefully. He waited until after a big vote he had a chance of influencing but right before an important fundraiser in Holywood when his change of heart would make him look good in front of a group of liberals. In the end its just words and words from a politician (a group not known for their honesty at the best of times) with a demonstrated track record of saying what he thinks will garner him votes.

 

[TexasWife25]

I think expecting Obama to actually lift a finger to protect same sex marriages is wishful thinking. He made his speech to garner votes from the GLBT community and he did it very carefully. He waited until after a big vote he had a chance of influencing but right before an important fundraiser in Holywood when his change of heart would make him look good in front of a group of liberals. In the end its just words and words from a politician (a group not known for their honesty at the best of times) with a demonstrated track record of saying what he thinks will garner him votes.

As Obama has already stated he believes it's a state issue, I agree with you, he won't be bringing change.

My biggest worry is Romeny, who has stated he would support an admendment that would take that option out of voter hands, dissolve current same sex marriages and civil unions and make both illegal.

He's also stated he supports the personhood admendment which would define life at conception, make all abortions, invetro, and some horomonal birth control illegal. I'm honestly not sure if he really backs those issues, or he simply said that in an attempt pander to his base.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm honestly not sure if he really backs those issues, or he simply said that in an attempt pander to his base.

Either way is absolutely repugnant.

 

[Aviator1976]

How so?

The founding fathers of this nation, who even if they were christian, were sons of the enlightenment and made sure to enshrine the ideals of the enlightenment in the declaration and later the articles of confederation, and later carried those ideas into the US Constitution (and our treaty with Tripoli).

They advocated violent rebellion against any governement who failed to meet a persons needs and made a specific point to separate religious morality from governement legality.

Give me one argument against same sex marriage that doesn't have its roots in religion. Just one, one argument that can not be logically refuted and I'll yield!

Since there are none I would ask you to leave by the East Door and take up residence in England where they still have a nationalized church (but a higher percentage of athiest/agnostic citizenship strangely).


EDIT:




Liberty University was founded for the express purpose of training right wing conservatives to take positions of power in government. The religious right has gone to great financial and personal expense to promote the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms even thought multiple federal courts have ruled that creationism is not science.

The christian right has formed into a voting block whether you like it or not, they have abused their protections as a non profit organization and insuated themselves into the political arena, and yes as a whole they vote as a group.

Your ignorance really is limitless, isn't it? The "religious right" you talk about does not represent all Christians, There are many Christians that are democrats, some Christians that are pro-choice, and even homosexual Christians.

Yet you and Stella paint Christians with a wide brush, yet get offended if someone dares to do the same with the gay community. Yet, if you look at voting trends, the gay community is far more monolithic and single issue oriented than Christians are.

 

[Aviator1976]

My biggest worry is Romeny, who has stated he would support an admendment that would take that option out of voter hands, dissolve current same sex marriages and civil unions and make both illegal.

When did he ever say he would support such an amendment? I firmly believe he would support civil unions and a way to extend legal benefits to same sex couples without compromising on marriage.

 

[Aviator1976]

Point to an Xtian fundamentalist preacher that stands up for civil rights for gay folk. Or a Catholic leader. Or a Baptist, or Mormon one.

Religious leaders try very very hard to make their flocks into monolithic blocks. They never stop trying, and they are, therefore, somewhat successful at doing so. They threaten their congregations with hellfire, and bribe them with heaven. And we see thousands of people reacting like the sheep they have been taught to be, voting like monoliths.

You know that quite well.

Yes, other are fundamentalists...just like there are militants on every side of every issue. There will always be those that hold a hard line and refuse to compromise, and that is their right.

And I am sure it in intentional on your part, but many Christians would feel your use of "Xtian" is as offensive as my use of the term "faggot" would be for you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yet, if you look at voting trends, the gay community is far more monolithic and single issue oriented than Christians are.

And why do you suppose that could be?

Yes, other are fundamentalists...just like there are militants on every side of every issue. There will always be those that hold a hard line and refuse to compromise, and that is their right.

They can hold a hard line for themselves and their flock, and no one else. They cannot force people to follow their morals and religion, they cannot force the world to go to heaven their way. That is not their right. What, exactly, does a militant gay person do that is that insulting and invasive of other people's rights?

And I am sure it in intentional on your part, but many Christians would feel your use of "Xtian" is as offensive as my use of the term "faggot" would be for you.

Why would they feel so insulted by a contraction? That's a serious question.

 

[TexasWife25]

My biggest worry is Romeny, who has stated he would support an admendment that would take that option out of voter hands, dissolve current same sex marriages and civil unions and make both illegal.

When did he ever say he would support such an amendment? I firmly believe he would support civil unions and a way to extend legal benefits to same sex couples without compromising on marriage.

I'm a firm believer in going with what the candidate said, instead of how you believe he will lead.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ts+marriage+amendment&spell=1&biw=480&bih=268


He's pledged himself to a marriage admendment, which would ban gay marriage and civil unions, just like he signed the personhood pledge. Again, I don't know if he did it in his bid to seem more "serverly conservative" but it's out there as his position.

 

[Aviator1976]

A militant gay person may participate in the sort of behavior we see at some of the larger gay pride parades. The blatant public sexuality that most people find to be over the top, if not offensive. You have to admit there are many that are as "in your face" about it as they can be. They thrive on confrontation.

And I agree there should be legal recognition of gay unions. Why the refusal to accept civil unions and the insistence on marriage? If the goal is legal equality, civil unions accomplish that.

Also, gay marriage is already legal everywhere. A gay couple in any state can go have a ceremony and live life as a married couple. What we are debating as a society is the extension of legal recognition to that union. I am not saying the legal recognition is unimportant, but a license issued by the state does not create a marriage. Maybe our divorce rate is 50% because that is the opinion too many people have of marriage. Marriage is more than the legal aspect, it is the spiritual and social aspects as well.

If contractions are not offensive, than I imagine you have no problem with people using the term "homo" to describe people. After all, it is simply a shortened form of homosexual. The contraction "Xian" bothers many Christians because it removes the foundational aspect of the entire belief system...Christ. It is similar to using "Xmas" for Christmas. You may think it is silly, but many people feel that way and in many cases it is hard to judge whether an person is using it purely in the interest of brevity or if they wish to be offensive.

 

[Aviator1976]

I'm a firm believer in going with what the candidate said, instead of how you believe he will lead.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ts+marriage+amendment&spell=1&biw=480&bih=268


He's pledged himself to a marriage admendment, which would ban gay marriage and civil unions, just like he signed the personhood pledge. Again, I don't know if he did it in his bid to seem more "serverly conservative" but it's out there as his position.

I fail to see how the marriage amendment (which would never pass) would ban civil unions. You are making assumptions based purely on your beliefs.

 

[njlauren]

It is obvious we will never find agreement on this issue, so it would be unproductive to go any further.

I would like to note that the hate comes from your side too, so there is a lot of the pot calling the kettle black. You chastise one side for their supposed hate and oppression, yet your views are just as full of that hate and oppression.

You actually "fucking hate" a group of people because their opinion differs from yours. That is the epitome of intolerance.

No, aviator, differences of opinion are one thing, it is by actions that the hate gets generated. The extreme right wing (what William F Buckley and Barry Goldwater called the anti intellectual loony wing of the Republican party) makes all these claims about liberals taking their rights away and in terms of violence, a lot more actual violence has been committed by these people then by so called liberals in the times we are talking about. I would defy you to show me incidents of where evangelical churches or religious people from this group have been attacked, I would love you to show me where religious people have literally been shot at. I keep hearing on right wing blogs how religion is under attack, yet no one is threatening their right to exist, to be safe.

Meanwhile, real violence has and continues to happen from right wing extremists and their are Christian militia groups out there, that drill and are armed and have basically made clear that if certain things happen (potentially like same sex marriage being declared a right) they will 'go into action'..don't believe me? Read some of the reports issued by the justice department under George W Bush.

Funny when you talk to the religious right, what they see as the 'war on religion' and what do you see?

-Teaching evolution as science and not teaching creationism (i.e. they want their faith beliefs promoted as science, which no judge, conservative or liberal, has bought)

-Organized prayer in the public schools, Christian prayers given the force of right by the schools, again to promote their views

-Giving exemption for religious belief in anti discrimination laws, that for example would allow a religious group accepting state or federal funds to discriminate in violation of the law. Any group, religious or otherwise, that accepts state money cannot play it both ways, but that is what they want

-They also are advocating for laws exempting employees from anti discrimination policies the company may have or the government may have, if it is based in religion. Specifically, they think an employee should have the right to demean another employee because they are gay or lesbian or transgender, or actively refuse to hire GLBT people or even work with them, because of their religious beliefs.


-And of course the biggie, they want the law to reflect their religious beliefs on marriage, they want legal recognition denies to same sex couples because their bible says "it is wrong". Besides the obvious, it is the federal government denying a benefit or right with no logical reason other then the religious beliefs of some or many, it also violates the first amendment because many religious people feel same sex marriage is okay, why should the beliefs of the religious right prevail?

-Without SCOTUS weighing in, several states had laws that criminalized certain behaviors in the privacy of your home, while many were aimed at homosexual sexual activity, which was bad enough, under those laws you could be arrested for having oral sex with your wife, having anal sex with your wife or practicing BD/SM. The Supreme Court (no thanks to the uber religious Catholics who make up the Catholic block, who in their dissent ruled the state has the rate to legislate morality in the bedroom, while the majority found that people have the right to privacy and the state has no right to legislate personal morality) overturned said laws; the most ironic was the Texas law the case specifically overturned, Texas law criminalized gay sex but made sex with animals legal, as long as you owned the animal....


Yes, there are a lot of issues in this election, but funny, no one is telling the religious right whom they might marry or might not marry. More importantly, the fact that the GOP is beating the drum on social issues, with the Catholic church making a big deal out of being 'forced' to pay for contraception in health plans (that I might add was settled in a federal case several years ago, the courts ruled that such laws are legal when it involves religious affiliated institutions that are general employers. If this is ruled illegal, I feel for a lot of people, because companies could then claim the same exemption. A company run by a Christian scientist could deny health insurance because they don't believe in doctors, a Jehova's witness could deny paying for blood transfusions or surgery because it requires surgery, a company could deny paying for other things simply out of wanting to save money and say "it is against my religious belief'..think this is just about sexuality?

And if you are on a board like this, you should be concerned, because one of the goals of the religious right is to find ways to censor the internet, to take things off of it they find objectionable or otherwise deny others their freedom of expression. Ironically, about 15 years ago when the right wing tried passing a law ostensibly designed to protect children from "indecent material", none other then Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision striking it down and what he said should give pause, he said that the law in question was written so broad, intentionally in his opinion, that its ultimate purpose was not to protect children but rather use the law to suppress speech and use the law to censor legal thoughts and expression of adults...think the religious right won't try again?

Yes, there are a lot of important issues, the economy is not exactly healthy and with the collapse looming in Europe it is likely to get worse, but it is interesting that in an election season when we should be talking economic issues, about stewardship of the economy, about creating jobs here in the US rather then sending them to China and India, the GOP is putting the full court press on social issues, on same sex marriage, abortion, etc........if what you say is true, then why is the religious right all fired up about a couple of social issues and totally ignoring the economy? Many of those classified as the religious right have been economically hurt over the past 20 years, why would they care more about same sex marriage then whether they have a job?

We face a lot of issues, but banning same sex marriage isn't going to repair the economy, banning abortion or teaching creationism isn't going to bring back jobs, the fact that the religious right spends all its time and energy on trying to get their religious views enacted or protected as law says a lot about them in a world of economic instability, terrorism and the like, and it isn't a flattering portrait, it is a group so caught up in their own hate and bigotry that that is all they see quite frankly.

And again, I defy you to show me where the religious right is so put upon, where they are facing violence for their beliefs or otherwise suffering whereas I can show you plenty of examples where people face that and a lot more from the religious right. To give you an idea, there is something called Christian Dominionism, look it up, it is basically a political philosophy that says that the US is a "Christian" nation and should model its laws on what is in the Bible and Christian teaching and it goes well beyond banning same sex marriage. Dominionists favor bringing back criminal charges for adultery, they want to limit or ban divorce, they want laws put back on the book making anything but 'straight sex' illegal, some of them want to bring back laws with penalties like stoning.and this isn't a couple of thousand kooks, estimated numbers are between 25-30 million people in the US subscribe to this philosophy...still want to think it is about ideas?

BTW, would you have told the same thing to blacks back in the civil rights movement fighting for basic rights like to vote, or to an interracial couple who wanted to marry who basically the same people told them they couldn't, because "God wanted the races separate"..would you tell them they needed to see beyond the basis of sexuality...I also might add that the fundamental issues I and others are complaining about are a lot more then sexuality, it is about a fundamental principal of this country, to be able to live under the laws of this country and know that our beliefs, our families and our lives are as valuable as anyone else's, that we be treated the same under the eyes of the law, something you cannot say the religious right wants as well, and it is about a lot more then sexuality or sexual identity.

 

[TexasWife25]

I fail to see how the marriage amendment (which would never pass) would ban civil unions. You are making assumptions based purely on your beliefs.

Google "institution of marriage amendment"

Also, Romney has already stated he is against civil unions.

 

[njlauren]

So gays are not a monolithic voting block but religious people are? That pretty much says it all.

Depends on what you mean by religious people. If you are talking the religious right, the answer is yes, among evangelical Christians stances on basic gay rights including same sex marriage is monolithic. Other religious groups are quite different, for example, other then orthodox Jews every other group has sanctioned same sex marriage, and a large majority of Jews support same sex marriage. While the Catholic Church is its usual medieval self, attitudes among Catholics vary tremendously and last figures I saw said that over 50% of self identified Catholics now support same sex marriage rights of some sort (legal same sex marriage) , I am talking fully recognizing it. Mainstream protestants vary, the UCC supports same sex marriage rights, The Unitarians strongly support it, while the Methodist church officially is against it a lot of methodists support it, the Episcopal church has all but officially supported it (ironically the same liberals are at work kind of making it not happen in the EC, they support same sex marriage but are afraid of 'insulting their brethren' in the Anglican communion in Africa specifically, afraid it will impair charity efforts they sponsor there). Over 50% of Americans support same sex marriage and among younger americans the percent is even higher, the the trend is rapidly going towards more and more people supporting it (If the GOP makes it a big issue, it may hurt them big time among independent voters, almost 60% of independents support same sex marriage).....the only groups where it hasn't changed? Evangelical Christians and among older people, not surprisingly.

THe religious are very diverse, but the religious right is not.

 

[njlauren]

I fail to see how the marriage amendment (which would never pass) would ban civil unions. You are making assumptions based purely on your beliefs.

The proposed amendment would ban same sex marriage and any law that would give the rights of marriage to anyone but a man and a woman (that was the text I saw). If you want proof of what the religious right is up to take a look what happened in North Carolina. They already banned same sex weddings by law, but they also now amended their constitution to ban civil unions, domestic partnerships and went as far as to ban any kind of legal contract that could give the rights of marriage (which would include things like medical power of attorney, guardianship of kids and so forth). And of yeah, wanna know why it passed so handily? Evangelical voters turned out in droves, they voted heavily for it.

Civil unions even if allowed have a problem, we still have DOMA on the books and a lot of rights, things like automatically inheriting a 401k or with health benefits, are covered by federal law (ERISA specifically) and it uses the term marriage which means someone with a civil union or DP is up the creek.

Would such an amendment pass? No way, but the fact that the GOP is pushing this tells you all you need to know about the religious right and their motives. This has little to do with the term marriage, it has everything to do with the religious right wanting the power of the government to tell others how to live, they basically want theocratic law, which is different then Iran, how?

 

[njlauren]

But a person's belief in religion does affect their vote, which in turn creates law. Which is the way it was intended all along...people vote their beliefs and values. To ask a religious person to check their religion at the door when voting is the same as asking a homosexual to check their sexuality at the door. Both are an integral part of who that person is.

You are missing a major fact, not surprising considering how between suck ass schools afraid to teach history and distortions by the religious right have suddenly changed the founders into these religious people wanting the country to be a Christian nation. You are right that people don't leave their religious views at the door when they vote, any more then they leave other beliefs, and yes that is how law is passed either through ballot or representative. What that leaves out is that 'the people' are not the last word, that law voted on by 'majority rule' doesn't always follow the overriding law of the land, the constitution. The religious right who so scream the first amendment forget why that was passed, it was passed to protect the rights (ironically) of evangelical Presbytyrians and Methodists and Catholics, who often faced the wrath of the established majority faiths, including being put in jail. John Adams and James Madison both were leery of the 'will of the majority' i.e. "Mob Rule", and in their writings they wrote about the 'tyranny of the majority'. The religious right when they denounce activist judges are basically trying to negate this check and balance to make it where the majority decides the rights of others . We have a legislative republic and a judicial system as well as a bill of rights because the founders knew, as with something like interracial marriage ban laws, that the majority can often be bullies and do the wrong things.

 

[Aviator1976]

Lauren - You make a lot of good points and provide a lot of detail that I don't have time to respond to all of. I will try to sum up my opinion on the issue.

Bottom line is everyone has an opinion, and everyone is free to vote based on that opinion. You can spend your time being angry at people for having a certain opinion, or you can move on and spend your energy in a more productive way.

The issue to me is whether or not the government has the right to choose which marriage it will recognize and extend benefits too. I believe the answer is yes. We as a society, through our government should be able to decide what we consider marriage and what relationships we will extend benefits to. We both discriminate, we just disagree on what level of discrimination is acceptable. Unless you give a marriage license to everyone that comes to the court house, you discriminate.

Apart from the issue of marriage, I feel everyone in this country has the right to choose who they wish to enter into a relationship with. I also think those relationships, in some cases, deserve certain legal recognition. You used inheritance as an example. A person can currently name anyone they want as their beneficiary, including their same sex partner. I think in a lot of examples people commonly use there is actually no need for a law. When a law is needed, it can be in the form of a civil union. Civil unions would not just be something reserved for gay couples. Straight couples not wishing to get married but wanting to cohabitate could get civil unions.

I would actually support removing the term marriage from the legal dialogue. A marriage is what happens in your church or synagogue or any other spiritual type ceremony. A civil union is what it would be classified as legally. I don't think government should be in the business of recognizing or legitimizing any marriages. As I have said, marriage is about so much more than simple government endorsement.

I am pretty tired, so I am not sure if this made sense or not. In the end I think the fight for gay marriage is about semantics, what matters is the legal recognition of the union for the purpose of associated benefits.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A militant gay person may participate in the sort of behavior we see at some of the larger gay pride parades. The blatant public sexuality that most people find to be over the top, if not offensive.

And how does two guys kissing in public affect your right to domestic happiness?

Also, many many hets indulge in "blatant sexuality" which I find offensive, but they never even notice what they've done.

You have to admit there are many that are as "in your face" about it as they can be. They thrive on confrontation.

Lots of people thrive on confrontation. Lots of fundies, for instance-- look at the Phelps and their shitty proselyting.

And I agree there should be legal recognition of gay unions. Why the refusal to accept civil unions and the insistence on marriage? If the goal is legal equality, civil unions accomplish that.

not yet, they don't. It takes five hundred (500) pages of legalese to cover every right and responsibility that is covered without question by the simple term "marriage."

Also, gay marriage is already legal everywhere. A gay couple in any state can go have a ceremony and live life as a married couple. What we are debating as a society is the extension of legal recognition to that union. I am not saying the legal recognition is unimportant, but a license issued by the state does not create a marriage. Maybe our divorce rate is 50% because that is the opinion too many people have of marriage. Marriage is more than the legal aspect, it is the spiritual and social aspects as well.

that doesn't even make sense.

If contractions are not offensive, than I imagine you have no problem with people using the term "homo" to describe people. After all, it is simply a shortened form of homosexual. The contraction "Xian" bothers many Christians because it removes the foundational aspect of the entire belief system...Christ. It is similar to using "Xmas" for Christmas. You may think it is silly, but many people feel that way and in many cases it is hard to judge whether an person is using it purely in the interest of brevity or if they wish to be offensive.

Well, I totally admit it-- I feel very little respect for the delicate sensibilities of people who tell me I'm going to hell and also that I don't deserve the rights and happinesses they enjoy. I find them to be mighty offensive in nearly every way.

"Faggot" and "Homo" in the mouths of most straight men have the meaning; "Any minute now I'm going to try to put you in the hospital."

"Xtian" has none of that meaning.

Get off your teeny-weeny high horse and stop defending the indefensible.

 

[Safe_Bet]

If contractions are not offensive, than I imagine you have no problem with people using the term "homo" to describe people. After all, it is simply a shortened form of homosexual. The contraction "Xian" bothers many Christians because it removes the foundational aspect of the entire belief system...Christ. It is similar to using "Xmas" for Christmas. You may think it is silly, but many people feel that way and in many cases it is hard to judge whether an person is using it purely in the interest of brevity or if they wish to be offensive.

Hey, Mr. Knowitall Dumbass, FYI the letter X has been used to mean "Christ" since the days of Emperor Constantine.

I'm sure you don't believe a homo so why don't you fucking google it.

Oh, in the mean time shut the fuck up about shit you don't understand.
(you know... Like Latin and evolution )

 

[Kurokami]

I am pretty tired, so I am not sure if this made sense or not. In the end I think the fight for gay marriage is about semantics, what matters is the legal recognition of the union for the purpose of associated benefits.

No. No, actually it's not about semantics at all. In fact, to me it doesn't even have anything to do with marriage. It's about being treated the same as everyone else. It's about my right to not be singled out because I have a boyfriend. It's about removing another cultural block that points to every gay man and woman and says "You are different, and that is wrong."

At least, that's how it looks to me. I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, and frankly there are plenty of people here who could probably say it far better than I.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, for many people it is about marriage.

It's about the honor and celebration of a wedding, shared with family and friends, just like the hets have.

It's about tax benefits for couples who share income and expenses, just like hets have.

It's about hospitals that refuse to let a person in to the emergency with their injured or dying partner because they are not legal next of kin.

It's about children who lose both same sex parents when one dies, and get sent off to a person they never knew.

It's about being able to live in dignity with the person you love.

And the right to claim that dignity.

(and damn right, it is about the right to divorce if it doesn't work out. hets don't have a monopoly on making mistakes either. )

what matters is the legal recognition of the union for the purpose of associated benefits.

And that is exactly the reason most churches try to deny the right. They don't want to share the public largesse, and there are religious leaders-- and corporate fascists-- who will tell you that straight out.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Bravo, Stella and Lauren!

Like it or not, homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender folk, etc. aren't going away. I used to be rather culturally bigoted against homosexuals (try being Prussian and not being so when I grew up where I did), but time and experience has shown me the error of my ways. Including facing my own hypocrisy about sexuality, in that I had lingering homophobia, but already had what some would technically call a homosexual experience in my past....an experience with a transvestite Tejana some years after I emigrated to the States.

It's something that I feared would come out....and it gave me a growing and uncomfortable awareness that I was on the wrong side of this issue. My position "evolved" much more sincerely than Obama's. First, from a legal standpoint, I came to believe that gays and lesbians had the right to equal justice under the law. That was much easier for me, because I was studying civics in preparation for naturalization and saw the validity of the legal arguments. Much harder was embracing my own sexuality and my own discomfort with it. I had to work on that one and in the meantime, I was very miserable.

But if any of you have read my earlier posts from years back, there is a consciousness that my irrational reaction was wrong. I had sympathy for the Cause and yet I feared the actual connection to the people with whom I agreed. It was a personal as well as a cultural homophobia, rooted in my own fear that being anything "queer" was less than manly. I'm working on this, consciously fighting this horror at the idea of not being a true Prussian....which I'm not anyway these days, since I'm American now.

My point is that this for me, this was a necessary transformation, and for others, it will be necessary as well. They can either embrace history or be swept away by it. Homosexuality is now much more mainstream than it used to be, and that is not going to change. The tide is turning, as witnessed by some states which now have it completely legal.

Romney, if he wins and pushes for this, will have to fight not only the growing backlash of a more open-minded generation of Americans, but also the trend of history. If an obnoxious Prussian scion of the old working class can change, so a redneck from the Bible Belt. Resistance will continue, but it will diminish with time. Yet this guy can do a lot of harm in the interim. And for that, along with other reasons, he must be stopped, if legally possible. We can survive four years of Romney, but we will be worse off for it.

And you better believe that the next Democrat in the White House will have a monolitihic gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender voting bloc behind him. And their families, which translate to a lot more votes than anyone can guess. Times are changin', friends. Many of us are learning that to find the "queer" in the community, they need only to look into the mirror.