The Equal Rights Amendment died during the radification process. We should call this the Unequal Rights Amendment.

And just because your candidate is not a clone of every idea you have doesn't mean it is wrong to support them over a flaming weasle bastard.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I myself don't agree with a lot of people's choices they make. I may not agree with their choice or lifestyle, but if two homosexual people want to marry, let them. Marriage has become superficial anyway. No one cares any more it seems. Marriage has lost its meaning for a long time. Besides, in this country, we have rights (albeit that a lot of em have been taken from us) and people can't be descriminated against, no matter how wrong anyone thinks they are. People have a free will and will do whatever they please anyway, so what right does the government have in taking that much away?

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I don't know if, or where I've posted my opinion on this topic, but here it is. I don't think homosexual marriage is right. Not because it disagrees with my religion, or because I dislike homosexuals.

The very concept of marriage, the ceremony, and the very meaning behind it, is religious. When you remove the religious text behind it, it ceases to be marriage, and becomes essentially a civil union. I am [u]not[/u] against the idea of equal civil unions for those who do not follow the accepted idea of married couples. I think civil unions should be exactly the same, legally, as marriage. A judge or some other form of official could perform the ceremony and do the paperwork for it, and make it all legit. The biggest argument I hear from homosexual activists is that if one gets put into the hospital, the other *may* be refused access to his/her partner. Understandable, but I'm pretty sure that civil unions, even as they stand now, will allow for that. If not, then why not just upgrade 'em?

As for the "let's ban all marriages between people who aren't christian" crap, how is that even remotely the same? Religious beliefs and sexual preference are widely different topics. Saying you can't marry someone of your gender is more akin to saying you can't marry two people at the same time than saying you can't marry a catholic if you're protestant.

I personally can't believe this is such a big issue. Why is it so hard for both sides to agree to simple legal unions between two people? That way, you get all the legal rights you want, but you keep from stepping on the toes of religious people who would rather not feel their special vows have been violated or made less special somehow.

In essence, marriage is a religious ceremony, no matter how shallow it has become in the minds of many people. No church in state? Sure. Remove "in god we trust" from my money, tell that judge he can't make me swear on the bible before a trial, and take out every law that is based on our religious past (Murder? Sure, that's legal! Theft? Who cares? Public Nudity? Suuuure [actually, yeah, let's repeal those laws, now that I think about it]). But you get the point.

Again, I see nothing wrong with homosexual unions that give them the same tax breaks and rights as heterosexual couples, but I don't think that it should invade the sanctity of what so many in this country and others hold dear.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

-_- The sad thing is, the religious text behind it HAS been removed. Mostly, marriage today is not religious, but practically a civil union. Its just that most will go to a church simply for the whole romanticism of having the church and the preist and the huge frikkin party behind it. There was a marriage between two people at my church. They're no longer married. The woman got tired of him. There's no sanctity behind it anymore, and no one cares enough to actually have a REAL marriage; one that lasts.

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

Of course not. I'm not highly religious myself, and think these ceremonies are silly and unneeded, but if they are to exist, I think they should always be just as they were originally intended to be. If you get a religious marriage, you don't get a divorce. If you are not "Husband and Wife", you don't get *married*. You get a civil union with all the benefits of marriage, and none of the drawbacks. The only benefit you lack is the implied "God's Will" stuff, which I doubt most homosexual couples give two shits about anyway.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

quote:

---

I don't know if, or where I've posted my opinion on this topic, but here it is. I don't think homosexual marriage is right. Not because it disagrees with my religion, or because I dislike homosexuals.

The very concept of marriage, the ceremony, and the very meaning behind it, is religious.

---

Does that mean my wife and I, who are of opposite sex and different faiths, and who got hitched in a civil ceremony, shouldn't be considered married?

Whatever your answer to that question, what is the difference between our relationship, and one certified in a ceremony by some religious official? If none, then do you retract your statement above?

---

How can you tell? Do religiously or civilly married couples wear stars on their bellies or other identifying marks? Are their children different? And what about differences among the faiths? A secular marriage in America might be more similar to a Catholic marriage than a traditional Muslim marriage is.

We have a lousy history regarding "separate, but equal," and those who favor full gay marital rights have justifiable fear that they would not be truly equal. Would/should companies have the same obligations regarding civil partners as religiously married ones? And where do civilly married heterosexual couples fit in?

In some states that is a big problem. And there are other thorny issues, such as people wishing to formally adopt their partner's biological child, visiting rights following breakups, and so on. Were it the case that there were not two sets of standards regarding homosexual and heterosexual couples, at least in some states, this would hardly be an issue of concern.

See my above paragraph. If only it were so easy.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

There are plenty of religions that perform same-sex marriages. Got a problem with that DX?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

That wasn't meant as a slam. Carry on.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

Does that mean my wife and I, who are of opposite sex and different faiths, and who got hitched in a civil ceremony, shouldn't be considered married?

Whatever your answer to that question, what is the difference between our relationship, and one certified in a ceremony by some religious official? If none, then do you retract your statement above?

---

No, you should not be considered married. Not in a religious sense. You should still have the exact same rights as the Johnsons who live next door to you. She, or you can take on the other's name (these days you can do that without even a civil union. Name changes are easy and legal) The difference is superficial, to those who have no faith in a higher power. The difference is immense to those who do. The two lines that show a big difference between marriage and civil unions to me are "under god" and "'till death do us part". Other than that I don't think there is a huge difference, nor should there really be.

True enough, but as I said before, it isn't a difference to secular or people who don't care, but why should we infringe upon the ideals of those who hold marriage dear? They have rights as well. The ceremony itself is not the concern for me and others of my opinion. The concern is in the context of the union. How can you say something is "under god" when it is technically against god? "We join these men together, skip a few lines, 'till death, or divorce do you part, skip a few lines, you may now do whatever you want with the, uh... effeminant half of the couple..."

I never implied that the rights should be anything but exactly equal. YES companies should have the same obligations, yes hospitals should have the same obligations. The rights should be the same, the ceremony should not.

Again, I am willing to aid the cause for completely equal civil unions for everyone, so long as it's two people. Not three people or a person and an animal. I would fight the system for the rights of two people to be unified civilly no matter what. This is all hypothetical, and even if Bush's ammendment is knocked down before it ever gets a chance to become ratified, gay unions will still be in danger of being unfair. The same people that complain about the amendment are the kind who want a law in place to protect gay marriages. Double-edged sword there.

Yes, if only.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

It wasn't meant as a slam but I think it deserves an answer. Do you see how these marriages are everything that any M/F marriage is?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Sorry Spanks, you posted that while I was still writing my last little rant.

Yes, I see that homosexual marriages are everything heterosexual ones are, the ones already performed are a touchy subject. I think it was irresponsibilty in SF, and before that, who can really do anything? I don't think they should be revoked, but I don't think the "damage" can be undone anyway. You can't really change them to civil unions, since that's what they already are anyway, essentially. In a religious context, they're already invalid. In a non-religious one, they're already as equal as possible. It's kinda a win-win situation, but neither side sees it that way.

Anyway, to answer the question, no, I don't have a problem with that, one bit. So long as the ceremony is different, then I don't care a damn bit. If your bible says "Okay, so, these two chicks started getting it on, and God was all like 'DAYM!'", then have at it. But if you're in a Christian church with a pastor performing your ceremony, I think it's only fair to say that it should be limited by the faith that performs it.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Why not three people? Seriously, why not? When you take religion out of the picture, what sense does it make to limit the number to two?

Honestly I agree that Religious organizations should not have to be compelled by law to redefine their concept of ordained marriage. By the same token, they shouldn't give a rat's ass about whether a government decides it should afford legal benifits to people who are civilly united. Given this, I don't think government should recognize "marriage" at all, but instead should start a clean slate with everyone capable of having a union with the same legal rights. Leave the ceremony of marriage to those who care about the religious aspect of it and let each congregation, sect or group hash out on their own whether they personally will call a set of people married or not. Why? Well for one thing, there is not 100% agreement amongst religous folks about this issue and there are churches where the congregation has no problem with it. Let them recognize it if they want. Let them get into shouting matches with their disagreeable neighboring congregations if they want. Ultimately it's their decision what title they want to give a union, if any. It's not like the term "marriage" would have any legal status afforded it, after all. It's not as though the church has the authority to give tax breaks, get you into a hospital to see a dying mate, give you access to federal adoption programs, or provides special rights or benifits above and beyond those in question. Those rights are government's job to recognize, not a Church's, and government should either give the legal benifits to all, or revoke them from all. Just don't use the mandates of some random religion's doctrines to decide who can and can't have said rights.

To put it simply, complications in tax breaks, as well as other benefits of marriage/civil unions.

Also, don't you start defending the mormons now.

And finally, while two men could raise a child fine, I have problems believing that three men, or two men and a woman, or a man and a donkey, or a woman and her cucumber would be able to raise a balanced child. Just a guess on that one.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Here's the deal, DX. You're claiming that marriage is a religious affair, but you know that's not the case. When I get married, I don't want to say "life partner." I want to say, "Wife." I want to be able to talk about my wedding. I like the concept of marriage, because it stands for not just a legal bond, but a bond of love. It's not just something you say so you can get tax breaks. It's not religious to me. The word has meaning outside religion, and you're a dumbass if you don't think that's true.

Whether or not it ought to be that way is a different argument, and you're confusing the two. Yes, the actual symbol of marriage has no "real" meaning, but it still stands for different-faith couples (hell, my parents were married by a judge.) You're saying we should get rid of marriage in all legal talk, but that's not gonna happen, because it means so much to so many people in this country. Denying Gay marriage is not how we fix the problem of state and church being tied together in this way.

Marriage, outside of the religious and legal context, means a commitment to love someone until death. There is no room for love in marriage law, just tax benefits and rules concerning hospitals. This is what I hear when I hear arguments like yours:

"Gay people! You can be a civil union, but you can't get 'married' because marriage is a religious notion concerning a heterosexual partnership. However, religions that have marriage but no such rule about heterosexuality, um, don't count, apparently. Sorry. Try Canada. We don't want you here."

Best friends of mine can't get married. I wish I could get them on here and let them talk to you about it. Especially since they were married by a priest, but had it rejected by the state.

---
Sex Piano.

Why not? Tom Selleck, Ted Danson and Steve Guttenberg managed it okay.

This all reminds me of the furore about Clause 28 over here. Clause 28 was a local government statute prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality by public authorities, and the government wanted to repeal it. People were up in arms against this because it would lead to the downfall of society. Then it was repealed, and now everyone in Scotland is gay.

Yes, Marriage has a meaning outside of religion, but it is still based in religion. The law regarding marriage in the US is still a *christian* based one. Again, I have no problem with equal rights. As I said before, I am not really that religious. I have my beliefs, but they don't involve gay people going to hell, or abortionists burning in a pit of fire. I'm a very loose christian, if you could even call me that. I still think that marriage, as a ceremony, should be restricted to a man and a woman. It's my opinion, and if you differ from that, it's your perrogative. What it comes down to, though, is that I've never heard of an established religion that holds a marriage ceremony that condones homosexual marriage. Christian, hindu, muslim, buddhist, jewish, none of these, as far as I know, do not support gay marriage.

What I'm not seeing here is *why* the idea of homosexual marriage being disallowed, while completely equal civil unions are fine is so bad. Spankling simply added to my argument. It's unfair either way, but I think it should be fair. I think marriage should simply be a way to attain the rights we know of today, one reseved for one man and one woman.

I understand the need for a ceremony around a loving relationship, and I'm not trying to invalidate the specialness of a gay relationship; I'm just trying to comprehend why it needs to infringe upon a very sacred, established ceremony, when there are other, easier avenues to venture upon.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

But when someone's ideals are blatantly discriminatory to another person or group, then that's a problem.

Straight (married or not) people's rights won't be trampled if this amendment doesn't go through and gay marriage becomes legal. Their ideals might be infringed upon, but their actual rights won't. If the amendment passes, gay people's rights get trampled though, and that's very wrong IMO.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

To put it simply, complications in tax breaks, as well as other benefits of marriage/civil unions.

---

I don't see how those complications would be anything that can't be figured out. And it has nothing to do with Mormons.

As for the raising of children, I'm unconvinced that the conventional and accepted method is doing a very good job of raising responsible, healthy, or particularly balanced people. The answer is not to stick with what doesn't work, but to recoginze the failure and try new things until you find what does.

To put it simply, complications in tax breaks, as well as other benefits of marriage/civil unions.

Also, don't you start defending the mormons now.

---

Given this forum's membership, he's probably more likely defending the Heinleineans. It's unclear why two is the optimal/only number for any function associated with marriage, save for the biological creation of an offspring.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

So, what if a group of people wanted to say that "Atheists ideals are blatantly discriminatory against God, who is a greater entity than any person or group. That is a problem and we must do something about it."? Or what if they wanted to say "Society's ideals are blatantly discriminatory against our religion because they force us to work on Sunday and on Holidays. Something must be done about this." What precicely do you want done about it? And who are you going to appoint to be the thought police to enforce this solution?

I don't like intollerant religious people, but the moment you say it's okay to try to make them change their minds through outside pressure, you also sanction them the right to pressure government into changing your mind about things too.

There's a difference between saying "I believe this, and therefore I must do or must not do this" and "I believe this, and therefore you, who do not share my beliefs, may or may not do this".

Some have touched on these subjects, but I wanted to explore them further with DX especially, since he seems to be the opposition here. By the way, I'm not attacking, you just seem to be the only one on the other side of the fence, sticking your tongue out and waving your hands about.

1. If a gay couple were "civilly unioned" and approached you, a ring on each of their fingers, saying they were married, would you laugh at them and tell them they weren't? Are they not allowed to use that terminology? If the answer to this is yes, proceed to 2, if not, skip 2, but provide a reasonable response, please.

2. My brother and his WIFE were "civilly unioned" by a judge in his chambers last October. They were not "married" because there was no mention of God in the entire ceremony. The vows were simple, and short. Are they not allowed to call one another "husband" and "wife"? Are they not allowed to use the "married" terminology because they are both athiests?

3. What does "Til death do us part" have to do with religon? I understand "Under God", but "Til death do us part" simply means what is stated, that they will love one another until the day they die. Are you saying homosexual couples are unable to love one another for that long of a period of time? Are they not allowed to grow old together, or should they be spouse hopping until the day they die, ala Jack on Will and Grace?

4. Do you actually know any homosexual couples, or are you just going off of the things that you see on TV shows? Some of them actually *gasp* believe in God! Holy wow, batman! As far as that goes, some Christians believe in incest!

Just some food for thought. I'm going to stop now, because I feel too strongly about this.

---
Mediocrity at its most average.

quote:

---

Here's the deal, DX. You're claiming that marriage is a religious affair, but you know that's not the case. When I get married, I don't want to say "life partner." I want to say, "Wife." I want to be able to talk about my wedding. I like the concept of marriage, because it stands for not just a legal bond, but a bond of love. It's not just something you say so you can get tax breaks. It's not religious to me. The word has meaning outside religion, and you're a dumbass if you don't think that's true.

Whether or not it ought to be that way is a different argument, and you're confusing the two. Yes, the actual symbol of marriage has no "real" meaning, but it still stands for different-faith couples (hell, my parents were married by a judge.) You're saying we should get rid of marriage in all legal talk, but that's not gonna happen, because it means so much to so many people in this country. Denying Gay marriage is not how we fix the problem of state and church being tied together in this way.

Marriage, outside of the religious and legal context, means a commitment to love someone until death. There is no room for love in marriage law, just tax benefits and rules concerning hospitals. This is what I hear when I hear arguments like yours:

"Gay people! You can be a civil union, but you can't get 'married' because marriage is a religious notion concerning a heterosexual partnership. However, religions that have marriage but no such rule about heterosexuality, um, don't count, apparently. Sorry. Try Canada. We don't want you here."

Best friends of mine can't get married. I wish I could get them on here and let them talk to you about it. Especially since they were married by a priest, but had it rejected by the state.

---

I'm not DX, but Trippingbillee, I have to know something. Why is it so important to force a state body or a religious association to acknowledge that people are in love as long as love is not the defining point of whether or not the government gives you extra rights and priveleges? Why should you, or I, or your friends care? If I were in love with someone, and they were in love with me, I wouldn't really give a crap who wanted to believe it or not because the only people to whom it ultimately matters are me and my significant other. I wouldn't care whether any church wanted to recognize me as being married or not. In fact, if I wanted to say I were married, I'd do so regardless of what any church or any person with a narrower view of love thinks. I'd have whatever ceremony I wanted to, and I'd talk about my "wife" and my "wedding" whether anyone else thought I was married or not. If they don't want to agree, that's not my problem as long as I have the same legal rights and entitlements as anyone else who has a union regardless of what they want to call call that union, and I am freely entitled to them regardless of whether a religion ordains that union or not. What is the point that I'm missing here? What is it that's so important that I'm not seeing?

As far as government is concerned, as of this very moment, the only thing "marriage" means is a man and a woman share tax breaks, hospital rights, and adoption rights. You're quite correct taht love is not a factor. That's an inequality, and it's wrong. It needs to be fixed. But if "marriage" necessicarily equates to "love," and you can't have the former without the latter, then why would anyone look to a state or a religious body to sanction it? Why is it the state's job to reward people with extra rights and incentives just for being in love and proving it with a piece of paper? Realistically, the only people who can sanction love are the people who share it.

It's true, I don't think that religions should be forced to recognize people as "married" if it's against their doctrines, but don't be fooled. I don't agree with the ammendment proposal that would ban non-heterosexual marriage. It's wrong for the government to force all religions never perform a non-heterosexual "wedding" whether the church actually would or not. It's wrong to deny people of non-heterosexual orientation the same legal rights as heterosexuals are given. It's wrong for the government to tell people that they can't love someone else of a non-socially-acceptable gender or orientation, and all these things are exactly what a ban on the concept of "marriage" as a legally enforcable status would do. The only real way that I can see to fix the problem though, is to just discard the word "marriage" from the legal lexicon and replace it with something that is legally equal and equitable to all unions. Government has no place recognizing, defining, or sanctioning love, and it has no business handing out incentives for people to fall into it. You say that "getting rid of the word 'marriage' from legal talk isn't going to happen because it means so much to so many people," but I honestly can't think of any other way that this issue can even begin to be resolved. Only if love stops being thoguht of as a legal status and is accorded as a matter for individuals to leave up to themselves can I see any progress being made. When people discard the illusion that love belongs in realm of law you wouldn't have to have a ceremony, be it christian, muslim, hindu, jewish, buddhist, shinto, or even a justice of the piece to tell you that you're "officically married." You can have any kind of wedding you want and it's as official as any other. Hell, make up your own kind, and call it a "wedding" or a "marriage" or a "galactic union" or "enduring flame of romance" or whatever you feel has the highest meaning to you. I certainly would like to think that I have the freedom to exercise creative liberties with such a ceremony if I ever wanted to put on some kind of celebration of mutual love, and if anyone else has a problem with it then leave them to their closed mindedness as long as my legal rights are the same as any other joined set of people. But legally, as long as people insist on using the word "marriage" as a term to be divisive with each other and as an excuse to deny each other civil rights, then the only real solution is to stop giving the word any legal power and let people squabble about its meaning in the civil forum until they can learn stop acting like spoiled children and play nicely.

There's a difference between saying "I believe this, and therefore I must do or must not do this" and "I believe this, and therefore you, who do not share my beliefs, may or may not do this".

---

Absolutely. Therefore it is wrong to act on the notion that "I believe that religious organizations should have to perform a wedding ceremony for people who their scriptures forbid them from marrying, therefore you religious people who do not share my point of view must do this to appease me." Just the same way as it's wrong for people to act on the notion that "I don't think that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, so therefore they must have fewer rights just to appease me and my wife (who I'm cheating on with the woman from the office)." Simple, yes?

What's sad though, is that it's not just religious people who disagree with giving equal legal rights to non-standard unions. They're the ones I'd have no problem attacking full-on.