My $0.02 on the gay marriage thing...

[Americangirl]

I know that this topic has been discussed a lot already, but I just figured that I would jump in and add one thought that I have been having.

I live in California (but not San Francisco). I am engaged to a great guy and I am getting married next year. I am enjoying being a bride-to-be and I think this is a very exciting time in my life.

I heard on the news how in S.F., they are putting the terms "First Applicant" and "Second Applicant" on the marriage license application instead of "Bride" and "Groom". I think it totally sucks that if this thing continues, I don't even get to be a bride anymore! I'm just an applicant! Why is it that those special designations, Bride and Groom, are being taken away from us heterosexuals?

I have no problem with civil unions, because that is a legal contract between two people. But I really wish the gay lobby would quit bringing a religious marriage into the picture, when most of them aren't religious to begin with. It trivializes the whole thing for those of us who are religious and who do take the idea of marriage (making vows before God) quite seriously.

 

[wonderwench]

You are missing the point.

The government has no business promoting religious defintions. We have separation of Church and State. The only role for government is in the laws which define the contractual aspects of the marriage relationship.

Your religious official will still call you a bride, regardless of what some gay couple put on an application.

 

[eric]

Very good post Americangirl, and I really do feel bad. This is a great time in your life to be remembered forever, and you should feel special !

I think your view is fair and balanced and it is a pleasure to see younger people who still hold some truths !

Good luck to you and your future family !

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The only role for government is in the laws which define the contractual aspects of the marriage relationship.

What business did government have getting involved in the religious institution of marriage in the first place then? Why do you need a government license for a union that is presumably sealed by God Himself?

 

[wonderwench]

You don't. If your only interest is in having a religious ceremony.

The government issuing marriage licenses is just an acknowledgement of a legally binding relationship. Marriage partners share certain assets and benefits - but are also legally liable for debts, taxes and other liablities. It is really the business aspect of the relationship that is the state's concern.

 

[nbdysfu]

At the moment I have to say I am somewhat neutral on this issue.

Although I will say that in regards to the business end of a marriage, there is higher risk (of pregnancy), in a heterosexual marriage. Consequently the risks are higher. Opinions?

 

[RobertOne]

While I am generally undecided on this issue, it is my understanding that marriage is recognized by the state for the following reasons.

1) The insistution of the family promotes values the state determines be important to society. These values are preserved and impressed upon the children. Generally speaking, the state identifies the family as an important unit of child raising and encourages people to share in these values with tax incentives and other financial benefits.

2) The other reason is a legally recognized union. For purposes of future seperation, the state can administrate the division of property and future responsibilities.

While civil unions (something available to same sex couples in most states) provide for #2, I assume the debate is primarily in regards to #1.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Americangirl
Why is it that those special designations, Bride and Groom, are being taken away from us heterosexuals?

Because you're feelings aren't as important as the feelings of a small but vocal minority 'future-Applicant #2', didn't you know that?

It's not about you. They don't care about you. It's about them, them, them. Pure narcissism. How dare you even express your opinions or feelings. Shame on you.




Ask that question, in person, to a die-hard liberal and see how long before they start screaming at you.

Ah, more tyranny of the disgruntled minority.

 

[acludem]

Gay marriage should be legalized. There is absolutely no good reason to ban gay marriage. I will now debunk a few of the main arguments opponents make:

1.) Gay marriage will undermine the sanctity of marriage: The divorce rate amongst married couples is so ridiculously high that it is clear there is no "sanctity of marriage" If marriage is so sacred how come heterosexuals can be married 3, 4, 5 or more times? People change spouses like they change underwear.

2.) Marriage is primarily for reproduction: Should men and women who are for some reason or other unable to produce children be banned from marriage? How about older people who are marrying after being widowed?

3.) Marriage is a religious issue: Fine, I'm not for forcing any churches to marry gay couples if they don't want to. Churches don't have to marry any straight couple they don't want to. Marriage here is the kind the government sanctions, and the government should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

4.) Gay marriage will lead to gay adoption which is bad for kids: What children in foster care all long for is a loving home with parents who want to care for them. Many kids have been raised by gay couples and have done just fine. Many children have been raised in homes with two men or two women - dad and uncle, dad and grandpa, mom and grandma, mom and aunt....etc.

5.) Homosexuality is sin and shouldn't be tolerated: You are entitiled to your opinion, but so am I.

6.) Gay marriage will lead to the continued moral decay of the U.S.: Whose morals? My morals are a bit different than Jerry Falwell's.

7.) The majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage: So what? The majority of Germans though it was a good idea to exterminate Jews in the 1930s and 40s. Democracy is based on majority rule with protection for the minority. There was a time in this country the majority of Americans thought slavery was a good thing.

There you are.

acludem

 

[deciophobic]

awesome acludem!!!!!!11

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
awesome acludem!!!!!!11

The marriage licenses are being turned away in california as invalid. There will be a constitutional amendment banning such marriages in the future. No amount of whining is going to change these facts. A runaway judge that breaks the law is only hurting the queers chances.

 

[William Joyce]

The whole point of "gay marriage" has less to do with "gay rights" than it does the undermining of traditional society. It is what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "Defining Deviancy Down." That is, by legitimizing the illegitimate, you lower the bar further. Gays don't really care about the legal or financial benefits of marriage, or need them --- gays are typically independently richer than the rest of us. What they want is the imprimatur of the state, or a state declaration that they're "OK." Since when is government in the business of giving its stamp of approval for various lifestyles? I don't favor jailing gays, but saying they can become legally married should be rejected.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by William Joyce
The whole point of "gay marriage" has less to do with "gay rights" than it does the undermining of traditional society. It is what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "Defining Deviancy Down." That is, by legitimizing the illegitimate, you lower the bar further. Gays don't really care about the legal or financial benefits of marriage, or need them --- gays are typically independently richer than the rest of us. What they want is the imprimatur of the state, or a state declaration that they're "OK." Since when is government in the business of giving its stamp of approval for various lifestyles? I don't favor jailing gays, but saying they can become legally married should be rejected.

Excellent response!

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The marriage licenses are being turned away in california as invalid. There will be a constitutional amendment banning such marriages in the future. No amount of whining is going to change these facts. A runaway judge that breaks the law is only hurting the queers chances.

Where's your proof of this? That's an assumption, and a very bad one at that.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
Where's your proof of this? That's an assumption, and a very bad one at that.

Read the threads we already have going on this. The office that receives the licenses from city hall has already stated they will turn away any licenses that have been altered (which would be all of them).

The amendment has been being discussed for quite some time. Even the president has stated he would likely push for an amendment.

Assumption? Do you even read the news?

 

[jimnyc]

Here is one for you for starters:

A state official says California will not accept thousands of marriage licenses granted to homosexual couples because the city changed the language on the official applications to delete the gender-specific terms.

"There is a statewide form that every county has to use for marriage applications," Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for California Health and Human Services, told Reuters.

"If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37191

 

[jimnyc]

Here's proof of the talk about the constitutional amendment:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/bush.gay.marriage/

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The marriage licenses are being turned away in california as invalid. There will be a constitutional amendment banning such marriages in the future. No amount of whining is going to change these facts. A runaway judge that breaks the law is only hurting the queers chances.

I was responding to evilarnorld, not the stuff you said. Sorry bout that, didnt make myself clear.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
I was responding to evilarnorld, not the stuff you said. Sorry bout that, didnt make myself clear.

Ok then.

The quote feature will help avoid such confusion. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[acludem]

I reject the notion that gay people are "deviant". They aren't straight, but to call them "deviant" is ridiculous. There are a lot of "deviants" in the world. We've even had one as President (James Buchanan, who had a long standing affair with a U.S. Senator). Alexander the Great was a "deviant." So were Rock Hudson, James Dean and Truman Capote. We have "deviants" in Congress, some are even Republicans!

acludem