Same-Sex Marriage

[pegwinn]

Somehow I missed this. My apologies.

I am already married, both in my Buddhist Lhakhang and legally. My life is mostly private. Congrats

My father was gay and he suffered tremendous oppression. He committed suicide in 1981. It is my loving legacy to him, to live openly with my wife. We have been together almost 24 years now. My condolences, belated but sincere, on the loss of your dad. My folks are still alive and elderly. I don't appreciate them nearly enough. Also congrats on the longevity of your marriage.

You haven't done the research I have to understand the legal implications of marriage vs civil unions. You don't understand the complexities and struggles that M and I have in securing each other in the inevitable event that one of us survives the other. You are right that I have not done the research. My point all along is that you should do as you please without the government getting involved.

Why not have an open mind and learn about what its like for us?

There is NO WAY for a lawyer to draw up any documents that will allow us to share the same rights and priveleges that married heterosexuals enjoy in all 50 states, even though we are legally married. Incorporate yourselves.

Talk to a few lawyers. I have often provided extensive research--including on this forum, about the legal realities of life for gay and lesbian couples.

You have stated you are indifferent to gays and lesbians. That is worse that hating us--because you don't care enough to pay attention to our lives and our struggles. I have had that charge levied before. While I don't advocate for you, I don't oppose you either. I personally think hate is worse. But, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

There is nothing more I want then to continue to lead a quiet life. My sexuality is not the first thing on my mind. In loving memory of my father, I will pursue equal rights until the day I die.

Del Martin just died. She and her partner, Phyllis Lyons were lesbian activists. They were married in SF after being together for 50 years. One of them, Del was wheeled in to the ceremony. Sex was hardly what they were proclaiming in marrying. Then the marriage was overturned. Then the state reversed the decision and Del and Phyllis married again. Del died recently. Their marriage is still legal--but in truth, just as my marriage is legal, I do not have the same rights and protections you enjoy in your marriage.

And no lawyer can do anything about that.

I would say that you should seek the same result on a different path. I suggest you look at incorporation for you and M. The tax advantages are there. Your assets become corporate property. Your insurance can go to a corporate trust fund. Do you see what I am getting at. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it is do-able.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny Wrote:

So straight people should not get married either because it is bringing their sex lives into the public realm?

Please don't jump to an attack, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse...I'm asking how one couple wanting to marry is their attempt to bring their sex life into public conversation....but another couple wanting to marry is not...or maybe they both are?

I can understand that some of the more flamboyant gay pride parades certainly make people feel that those participating are flaunting their sex lives for all to see...but I'm not sure how a committed couple who quietly go to the justice of the peace to be married is...can you clarify?

First off, you are equating biologically normal behavior with biologically abnormal behavior. There is no comparison. Second, you are equating marriage with going to the justice of the peace.

Marriage is a religious rite, and conducted in a church. If you don't want my church in your government, feel free to keep your government out of my church.

Going to the justice of the peace is a legal matter based upon the law. If the law states no, because the majority AGAIN voted no, then it should be no.

Where people got this notion that the minority should be able to rule is beyond me. Homosexuals represent less than 10% of the US population; yet, some would have us legislate special rules that apply only to them. That's BS.

IF the majority votes okay for civil unions, then it should be okay. That's how the law is supposed to work. In each and every case the judiciary has usurped the legislature's power to represent its constituency.

 

[Gunny]

So then everyone's sexuality should remain secret? No matter if you're bi, straight or gay?

Spin it how you want. I don't see that anyone sexuality has anything to do with anything unless they're looking for a date UNLESS they are in their own home.

Do we go out in public daily to have sex? No. It's a nonplayer in going to work, the store, gas station ...

You tell me what's the point of interjecting it where it doesn't belong?

 

[Gem]

Gunny Wrote:

First off, you are equating biologically normal behavior with biologically abnormal behavior. There is no comparison. Second, you are equating marriage with going to the justice of the peace.

I'm not equating anything to anything else. I was asking you why a straight couple getting married was not flaunting their sex lives...but a gay couple was flaunting theirs.

If I read through your statement...it seems like your answer to that question would be that because homosexuality is not normal and heterosexuality is...then the straight couple is not bringing their sex life into the public because their sex life is normal...and the gay couple is because theirs is abnormal.

Is that correct? I want to make sure I'm understanding you.

Marriage is a religious rite, and conducted in a church. If you don't want my church in your government, feel free to keep your government out of my church.

I'm just trying to understand your opinion...I have not made any comments that would necessitate you to specify mychurch or your government. I have not said anything so far which would imply that I think church and state should be merged somehow.

Going to the justice of the peace is a legal matter based upon the law.

Yes...but straight couples "married" by a justice of the peace are considered "married," in our society...not "civilly joined," even if that is the most appropriate definition.

If the law states no, because the majority AGAIN voted no, then it should be no. Where people got this notion that the minority should be able to rule is beyond me. Homosexuals represent less than 10% of the US population; yet, some would have us legislate special rules that apply only to them. That's BS.

How do you respond to the people who point out the number of injustices in our nation's past that were supported by the majority...yet were overturned because of what our Supreme Court, Congress, etc. decided was "right" or "fair?"

IF the majority votes okay for civil unions, then it should be okay. That's how the law is supposed to work. In each and every case the judiciary has usurped the legislature's power to represent its constituency.

I agree with you completely that the judiciary in many of these cases have abused its power and has been one of the main forces in making this such a heated and often hostile issue. People do not like judges making law or forcing social agendas on them via the judicial system.

 

[KittenKoder]

If married couples are to continue getting legal rights then it shouldn't matter what the gender is, if it's religious then there should be NO legal rights, otherwise that makes ALL marriage illegal.

 

[Gem]

Haven't we already crossed that line, don't priests and pastors and rabbis already say, "And now, by the power granted to me by the state?"

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes, it IS bringing out bedroom stuff. The only thing that defines gays as gay is their sexual behavior. PEGWINN's point is -- and it must be a Marine thing -- nobody gives a crap what you want to screw, nor wants to hear about it. And yes, that applies equally to heterosexuals.

Well, I think it's perverted and overly sexual for men to wear pants, they are SUPPOSE to wear skirts called kilts. So then heteros are forcing their perverted sex on me.

 

[KittenKoder]

BDD,

If civil unions were guaranteed provided all of the same state and federal rights and benefits of marriage - would you feel that that would "close" the issue? Or do you feel that the homosexual community and their supporters would or should continue to push for their unions to be called "marriages" and legally recognized as marriage?

If I actually cared about marriage I would find it acceptable, the wording isn't the important thing, but there are some extremists who do care for some reason and I don't agree with them either really.

Special note: Though I agree that gay couples should have all the same legal rights I do not support marriage at all. I think it's just legalized prostitution anyway.

 

[editec]

Marriage is NOT a religious right it is a legal one.

The radical religious wackos don't own marriage.

 

[Gunny]

Well, I think it's perverted and overly sexual for men to wear pants, they are SUPPOSE to wear skirts called kilts. So then heteros are forcing their perverted sex on me.

Lame. You get paid for building that scarecrow, or what?

 

[catzmeow]

Where people got this notion that the minority should be able to rule is beyond me. Homosexuals represent less than 10% of the US population; yet, some would have us legislate special rules that apply only to them. That's BS.

This B.S. idea came from our constitution. We aren't a democracy. if we were, that would mean that we would strictly follow the will of the majority. But we aren't. Our laws protect the rights of minority populations, even when those rights might come into conflict with the will of the majority.

So, just like in the 1960s when the majority of Southerners didn't want the schools integrated, the constitution and the rule of law protected the rights of black folks and the Supreme Court struck down the unconstitutional practice of separate but equal. Some would call this legislating from the bench, but the fact of the matter is that it is the role of the supreme court to test legislation against the litmus of the constitution. They are a check/balance on the right of the legislative/executive that protects the rights of the people...all the people...not just the larger majority.

I have no doubt that at some point, the same will occur with gay marriage.

And, for the record, no one would force any specific religion to marry gays/lesbians. Only those religions who WISH to perform marriages for gays/lesbians would ever be impacted by making this legal. This is a common misunderstanding, but simply inaccurate. Making gay marriage legal means ALLOWING, not FORCING religious organizations to perform these marriages.

Even now, religious congregations and leaders can ALWAYS opt out of marrying a couple of the couple fails to meet the religious demands of the particular faith. For instance, Catholic priests will rarely marry a couple unless the couple agrees to raise any children within the faith, and also usually require the couple to take pre-marital counseling and/or classes. This is COMMON. Most pastors will not marry a couple without at least meeting with the couple face to face.

There are specific denominations that cater to gay/lesbian parisioners, and those are the churches that would be performing these marriages. The rest could continue on their current path.

 

[Care4all]

Every man can marry a woman and every woman can marry a man

equally....but with exceptions

Yes, even on hetero couples there are regulated restrictions on marriage....

Can't marry more than one person

Can't marry a 10 year old

Can't marry a teen without judicial or parental consent

Can't marry sibblings

can't marry father with daughter

can't marry mother with son

can't marry 1st cousins

by all means, even now, marriage is restricted for many groups of people, NOT just for two men or two women.

 

[catzmeow]

by all means, even now, marriage is restricted for many groups of people, NOT just for two men or two women.

Can you legally marry a black person?

 

[Gem]

As long as he is a man, yes. But I can not marry a woman...even if both of us are straight.

 

[Care4all]

Can you legally marry a black person?

If he is a man

and if he is not married and has no other wives

and if i were not married and had no other husbands

and if this black person were over the age of 18,

If not then with his parent's permission,

and if i were not over 18

then with my parent's permission,

If not parent's permission then with the permission of the State

and if this person were not my brother,

or not my father

or not my sister

or not my mother

or not my first cousin

I most certainly can marry a black person!

-----------------------

I am just saying.....there are all kinds of rules and regs guiding such....all of which could be considered discriminatory, no?

If I were widowed, and my sister were widowed and were were two old broads, who decided that we would never remarry and just live out the rest of our lives together, sharing everything could we get married so that we could have property rights, and hospital visitation rights, or could I draw her social security if she passed away or a number of things that would protect us as a unit?

Even if gay marriage passed, it would still discriminate against me....with my sister.

If i were married, and wanted to take on a second husband...it would discriminate...again, if that is what you want to call it....against me.

Mormons can not legally have many wives....

All I am pointing out is that the law is discretionary, as it stands to many different people and this would not change by now making it ok to the same sex couples.....

Care

 

[KittenKoder]

Lame. You get paid for building that scarecrow, or what?

You really don't get it. Just because a guy dresses better than you, has a slight accent, and a better decorated house you want to see it as sexually offensive. While heterosexuals are practically fucking in coffee shops (yes I have seen it and got them banned thankfully), kissing and grabbing each other on the streets and in commercials, not to mention the 'erectile dysfunction' commercials and ads everywhere. All I see from gay people is Calvin Kline ads.

 

[submarinepainter]

I think it can be worked out on what we call it , marriage or civil union , I believe gays have a right to be together in a union be it a civil union or a marriage with all legal rights to go along with it.

 

[Care4all]

I think it can be worked out on what we call it , marriage or civil union , I believe gays have a right to be together in a union be it a civil union or a marriage with all legal rights to go along with it.

And the others? Can I then be allowed to marry a sister, brother, mother or father for legal preference?

If I am a Mormon and want more than one wife, can i too get my legal rights to do such?

shouldn't we allow anyone to marry anyone, and as many of anyones as they please, in order to not discriminate, if all are adults?

just wondering?

 

[KittenKoder]

And the others? Can I then be allowed to marry a sister, brother, mother or father for legal preference?

If I am a Mormon and want more than one wife, can i too get my legal rights to do such?

shouldn't we allow anyone to marry anyone, and as many of anyones as they please, in order to not discriminate, if all are adults?

just wondering?

Hell ... unless you have a goal to create children I don't care if you marry your sibling, that's just regulated to prevent more deformities anyway. Multiple wives ... really don't care about that, it was legal in the US for a LONG time before someone decided to change that so it's already been done.

 

[sky dancer]

And the others? Can I then be allowed to marry a sister, brother, mother or father for legal preference?

If I am a Mormon and want more than one wife, can i too get my legal rights to do such?

shouldn't we allow anyone to marry anyone, and as many of anyones as they please, in order to not discriminate, if all are adults?

just wondering?

No. We are talking about allowing two adults to marry each other. I like your name on the forum. Do you mean it? Do you care for all? What's it to you if gay men and lesbians are able to legally marry?