Hello all,

I just wanted to throw a theory I had out and see what you thought about it. Do you think if we had used a word other than “marriage,” that we would have a better chance of getting the rights that go with that institution? We could called it civil unions or whatever, but not marriage.

Read this:
Why Marriage Matters : America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry by Evan Wolfson

yes, i do.

the word, "marriage," is emotionally charged. progress will be incremental unless the word is removed from the discussion. the word, "marriage," also has religious connotation. our advocates speak to deaf ears when they seek marriage equality. i believe the religious defenders of traditional marriage are more likely to hear our message if "marriage" isn't the objective.

however, the other side of the coin is that if it is called something other than "marriage," the implication is that queers are unworthy of this social construct. and, frankly, i'm tired of being diminished. it's shitty.

personally, all i want (today) is a friggon' tax break.

[ August 11, 2005, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: EricNC ]

Maybe we need to come up with a word to discribe a gay marriage that the breaders can't have. A special word for special people if you know what I mean.

[ August 11, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Ou Sooner 1997 ]

So when the civil rights movement was trying to overturn miscegenation laws they should have called it interracial civic unions?

being allowed to sit in the middle of the bus isn't good enough! we here in massachusetts advocated for marriage; we got marriage; and the damned world didn't end!

now those opposing gay marriage have almost no arguments against it. the world hasn't ended; no one has married their parakeet; the institution is as sacred as it ever has been. the opponents have been unmasked for what they are -- bigots, pure and simple, because all their predictions of doom and gloom if queers are allowed to say, "i do." were wrong. wrong. wrong. when you point this out and ask the basis for their continued opposition, you get a lot of stammering.

do not compromise. demand equal rights. there were those who urged caution here in massachusetts, as well, arguing that if we went the more palatable civil union route we'd gain more support and acceptance. they were wrong too.

do not fall for the separate but equal argument. equal is equal.

I'm just throwing out ideas and thoughts. It should be called marriage and even if it was offically called a civil union, people would eventually call it marriage.

Maybe a baby step in the right direction will be more benifical in the long run than a huge leap.

Just a thought.

Why would a "baby step" be acceptable for the GLBT community.

It has never been acceptable for anyone else. Did the slave community want a "baby step" towards their freedoms? What would that have been, every second Saturday night off?

Did MLK accept a baby step in the civil rights struggle? Did he say, "we'll accept being able to vote for dog-catcher for the time being massa"

Equal rights are exactly that. They're not "equal rights for everyone except the faggots". (well, that's what they are now, but we're trying to change that).

ANd besdies, if countries like Canada, Spain, Netherlands and Belgium can do it, so can the US. It will take a little longer, but I'm confident in the eventual fairness of the American people

in many parts of the country the argument rages on.

while it's true that massachusetts did not implode upon the first queer "i do," many people in my part of the country don't care about massachusetts.

i would like to see change. it makes my blood boil when i see one of those damn bumper stickers that reads, "One Man + One Woman = Marriage." kiss. my. ass.

realistically it'snot going to happen across the board in this country if you call it "marriage."

i wish everyone could see it your way, thersis.

Yes he did. And so did other leaders and members of the black community. Not the way you are saying it. But the civil rights movement was a series of steps, pushing the change in society. It didn't happen instantly, either legally or in attitudinal shifts. As an example, initially the boycott of the Montgomery bus system in 1955 was in reaction to bad treatment. They didn't initially demand to end separate seating on the buses. That was their goal, of course, but they didn't start by demanding that, according to Coretta Scott King.

In this post I am not speaking to the judgment that they should have had to wait, or go slow. Or that equal rights are something different than equal rights. Just that the idea suggested of a process of change has been used before.

[ August 12, 2005, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Good Hands ]

I'm certainly an incrementalist. I believe in compromise and moving toward a goal in reasonable steps. However, I reject the defeatist notion that it's never going to happen. It should happen and it will happen. It's going to happen because we take every incremental step we can. It's going to happen because it's the right thing to do.

I too believe it will happen. Maybe not tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but it will happen. Till then how bout calling it a "joining union"???. Or joining ceremony? Just a thought. wink

jqueer, i misspoke.

realistically it's not going to happen in this country SOON ENOUGH TO SATISFY MOST OF US.

Maybe one correct step would be to stop referring to non-religious "marriages" between heterosexuals as "marriages". Maybe they are simply civil unions, not performed in church, recognized by the atate, but not religiouly sanctioned.

And, I guess, in the long run, a rose is a rose is a rose - if you get all the same entitlements from the government, who cares what it is called? We're not talking about separate but equal here as stated above, we 're talking semantics.

Exactly

First, semantics and symbolism are important. They're not the be all and end all of politics, but they cannot be simply dismissed.

Second, if we were presented with a nation wide civil union program that truely did supply all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, yes that would be acceptable. But we aren't being offered that. Up until that point any local civil union ordinance is separate and unequal.

I guess I think of it as a difference between substance and image, and images don't impress me. Substance does.

Personally, I think the GLBT community should be screaming for marriage all the time, and then accepting the baby steps that are out there (CT's vote for civil unions, for instance). I don't think anything can be gained by backtracking on the ultimate goal, or pretending that CUs are the answer, but grudging acceptance of partial legal recognition (domestic partnerships in CA) can be used to drive home the message and winnow away at the anti-gay crap we face.

I also think there should have been a totally different strategy with regards to selling gay marriage rights, and it is not too late to change there. Every time people bring up the sanctity of marriage, we need to remind them about all the "immoral" marriages currently recognized by the state that are rejected by various churches - remarriage after divorce (rejected by Catholics and many fundamentalists), inter-religious marriages, arranged marriages in some Southeast Asian communities, and, most importantly, marriage rights for convicted felons - INCLUDING murderers and rapists. We need to stress that every religion not only gets to determine which marriages to recognize, at least theologically, but also accepts the legality of these immoral marriages - when was the last time a Catholic hospital, for instance, refused to let a spouse visit because that spouse had remarried after a divorce? How many "religious" organizations provide spousal insurance benefits for those people who are not "married" according to their religious beliefs (e.g., Mormons employed by Catholic schools)?

So you're willing to give up substance so that we can't be accused of being concerned about image? There is nothing in this country that even approaches the rights and responsibilities available to married couples available to gay people. Nothing can until the federal government recognizes gay couples in the same way it recognizes married couples. The reason the word "marriage" is so important is because until that word is used across the board, there will be legitimate ways governments can limit the scope of gay relationships. The word is important because it's the shortest distance between two points. The word is important because as long as there's something that isn't marriage available to gay couples, there will be people out there using it to both claim they've provided everything they need to provide for us and at the same time restricting our access to the rights that the status of marriage brings.

And the marriage issue isn't just about the rights married couples will enjoy. It is also about being less than. As long as the bigots can point to some status that isn't marriage, they have an argument for gay people being less than straight people. I'm not saying marriage is going to cure every bigot. I'm not saying gay kids will stop killing themselves. I am saying it's as important a step in gay civil rights as Loving v, Virginia was in African American civil rights. Some people still look askance at interacial couples, but they are fewer and farther between every day.

[ August 14, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Jqueer, you're missing the point. I'm talking about having all the rights, etc. but calling it something different in order to get there. You're kind of going in a direction like conservatives do with the flag, like the symbol (in our discussion, the name) is more important than what is symbolizes. That's the difference between substance, getting what we want, and image, calling it something so offensive to so many people that our goals are never realized. Which is more important?

The point I'm making is that civil unions have not acheived and are not acheiving the goals we have. Will they acheive them? I don't know, but I do know that as we push for marriage, every major poll on the issue is steadily shifting toward allowing equal relationship rights at every level to same sex couples. I have no idea what the causality and correlation of this is. I don't know if people are becoming more comfortable with notion of gay marriage because we've put it out there or if we're more forward about it because people have become more comfortable. I do know that the word "marriage" is not a symbol like the flag. It's a status. It has definitive meaning in the legal, religious and moral sense. Saying the word "marriage" is unimportant is the same as saying the word "President" is unimportant, he's just another elected official.

Again, I've always been in favor of an incrementalist approach. I understand the use of civil unions and domestic partnerships, but the moment we accept a less than status as inevetable and preferable, we've lost the war. The people who cannot stomach gay marriage are not going to roll over and say same sex civil partners can file their taxes jointly or get hospital visitation rights or inherritance rights or adopt or do any of the myriad of other things married people take for granted. Those people are already lost to us. We're not trying to convince them. We're trying to convince the people on the fence, and accepting the increments as the goal rather than as a means to an end is an admition of defeat that will keep them on that fence rather than bringing them to our side.

this is an excellent point. and by repeating our message clearly and consistently, the opinion of those to the far right may become marginalized.

however, this thread demonstrates that as a community, we (glbt) are divided in our message. the apathy of many people i talk with is disappointing. but how to change it? how to rally and unify and ignite? that's a huge dilemma.

It would be great if everyone in the gay community could agree on a common approach to obtaining full rights we deserve; however, I refuse to go along with those people in the community who believe shouting the word "marriage" over and over is getting the job done. Whether they want to admit it or not, their need to call gay unions a "marriage" is what helped lead to the passage of those 10 or 11 hateful state amendments last November. I have read this entire thread, and I respect jqueer's opinions on the subject. However, I don't want a "marriage". What I'm looking for is a civil union. You can keep all the marriages in the church, where they belong. If I'm not mistaken, the actual word "marriage" is derived from religion. The secular part of society just picked up on using this term and it's now commonplace for 2 hetero adults to get "married" in a quickie ceremony in Vegas, for example.

Let the churches decide which unions they want to recognize. The US government should solely focus on providing benefits for those couples that want to have a civil union. In fact, I would propose as above that all couples begin getting "civil union certificates"...if you want a true "marriage", then make an appointment at your local church after having your civil ceremony. Religious leaders would no longer be able to perform civil ceremonies, since they actually perform marriages, which would no longer be seen as valid by our government.

Our government should not be in the business of approving or disapproving of a ceremony that occurs in a religious building...that comes awfully close to mixing the waters of what is supposed to be separation of church/state.

[ August 15, 2005, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: dfwAggie99 ]

I don't know who these people are. I have yet to meet anyone or hear of anyone who thinks "shouting the word marriage over and over is getting the job done". I do know a lot of people, myself included, who reject any "separate but not quite equal" arrangement.

You want a civil union? Great! That's your right! But should others be deprived of their desire to marry? You say churches (and I presume by extension other religious bodies) should decide whom they will marry. I agree. I am not aware of anyone who said the state should force religious bodies or clergy to conduct marriages their religion opposes, whether it is Catholic clergy marrying divorced people, Orthodox Jews conducting interreligious marriages or fundamentalists conducting same sex marriages. I also, however, think that Unitarian Universalist, Jewish Reform and Renewal and other clergy DO have the right to perform same-sex marriages which their faith permits and celebrates without the state saying they are not holy enough. This is not only a denial of our civil rights, it is interfering with freedom of religion.

Marriage is not fundamentally religious; in its origins it was an economic arrangement for sharing property, inheriting wealth and titles, cementing alliances between powerful clans or royal houses, etc. For the humble it guaranteed children that would be acknowledged and would form part of the family economic unit and care for parents in their old age. It is only in the past couple of hundred years that marriage has become intertwined with romantic love.

It is not the people seeking equality who are responsible for hateful ballot initiatives. I remember when we were told that it was our civil rights movement that was responsible for the Anita Bryant-style intiatives banning any civil rights for GLBT people. Let's get this clear: it is HATERS who are responsible. It is HATERS who spread their filth about us. It is HATERS who scare people with horror stories of what will happen if we have equality. If we acknowledge that we somehow deserve lesser rights than straight citizens we are acknowledging that the haters are right, we are lesser people.

I agree we have a lot of education to do. But most of all when people see the sky has not fallen in Massachusetts, nor has it fallen in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, some (not the hard core haters) will realize that marriage equality will not harm them and in fact makes society better. Just as, at the time of Loving v. Virginia, 75% thought interracial marraige should remain illegal. It took 25 years for a majority to change their minds. Should the Lovings have said "well, just give us a civil union since we really don't deserve equality and don't want to upset anyone"?

You have every right to your personal choice of civil union. Others have the right to marry.

I'm fairly conflicted on this path. Ideally, I think that abolishing marriage as public policy is a good idea. Government should be in the business of recognizing relationships that stabalize society regardless of the religious implications. I just don't know if removing the word "marriage" from public life is as attainable as changing the way it's viewed. Either end result is acceptable, I just don't know which is easier to attain. It's this kind of divide that I think it's worth having disparate elements of the community working on at the same time. If we keep at both ends of the problem, eventually we'll get a clear idea of which direction is making better headway.

So, having a civil union granted by the government that includes all the same rights as heterosexuals would not be enough? It would have to be a "marriage" by name? What difference does it make if it only varies semantically?

Let the str8s keep that precious word "marriage"...they've done plenty to destroy it anyway.

I would have absolutely no problem to a civil union, if that's what it was called for everybody. IOW, if you get hitched at city hall, it's a civil union. If you get hitched in a church, it's a marriage.

That way, "Marriage" is still reserved, but everyone gets their rights.

Other than that, it's a red herring. As many people have said before on this board, Separate but Equal are rarely EITHER.

I understand the want for equality and it will happen in the long run, but for now, insisting on "marriage" rather than another name that legally provides all the same rights, responsibilities, and priveleges is counter-productive. It inspires the hate-mongers to new levels of action. Straight people I know are fair-minded and could deal with the equality of it all, but don't step on their Bible. You get into a whole different game of wanting to be approved by the church and they are not even close to being there. Accepted by the state? okay. By the church? No way.

By the way, my ex and I were civilly united in Vermont. Divorce from a woman was hellish enough but I don't even know how to get out of this arrangement. The state of Vermont says one of us must live ther for a year before we can apply for dissolution. Anybody know a way out?

And talk about conflicted. At this point I don't want my relationship recognized by other states, I'd probably be paying another person.

But no one is offering that. If someone were, we could have a discussion about it. But what everyone is offering when it comes to civil unions and domestic partnerships is definitely separate and unequal. If the Bush administration were pushing complete equal protection and calling it copulation permits, I'd probably be on board, but instead they're pushing an Amendment to the Constitution that would void agreements made without the state's involvement at all, much less provide any governmental protections. It's all well and good to say we'll accept something equivalent to marriage not called marriage, but someone has to actually offer it to be at all useful. Until that point, if the word is that powerful, then we have as much right to it as anyone else.

If you were married to this man, you wouldn't have any questions about what can or cannot be done. You would walk into a lawyer's office, sign some papers, maybe show up in court for a day, and you'd be divorced. It is precisely because we do not have access to governmental institutions that civil unions are worthless as currently constituted.

Oh Jqueer, I can tell you've never been married. You make divorce sound so simplistic. Remember when we gain the rights and priveleges of the institution of marriage, we will also gain the responsibilities, including probably having to write checks for years to some able-bodied man who was equally as lousy as the women we escaped.

Yes, but on the flip side my friend would not have had to settle for a paltry $3,000 for the equity in his house when his relationship broke up. The couple owned a house in DC togther, sold it together and bought a new place in CA. Unfortunately, the lying scum of a partner only put his name on the new CA house - my friend was still wrapping up things here in DC - and promptly started an affair with the real estate agent! My friend goes out to CA, finds out he's been dumped AND has no legal right to the new house his $$ has bought. He finally gave up fighting his former partner when he realized the lawyer's fees would eat up almost everything he was owed on the DC house. Had they been married, there would have been no issue to fight.

You're right about being married and not having to worry about this situation, but this seems like one of those situations where your friend should have known the current times we live and took steps to protect himself. It's highly unfortunate his partner screwed him over royally, and it's more unfortunate your friend did nothing to shield himself such an occurrence.

If there is such a thing as a life lesson, it appears this could be it. Live and learn...

[ August 16, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: dfwAggie99 ]

And Geez, men have never been screwed over in hetero marriages.......

And Geez, men have never been screwed over in hetero marriages

Women too!

When my sister was married, her husband insisted she quit work (she was a paralegal) to look after house & kids full time. He was a highly paid attorney at the court of appeals so economically they could manage. But when the marriage broke up, the jerk argued that since he had worked hard for the money he should not have to split with her! The reason he was able to put in the extra time was because she was there cooking the meals, cleaning the house, doing the laundry, caring for the kids, taking them to appointments, sports, etc, going to school functions and so on and so on. The judge didn't buy the argument, BTW. I know of another couple where both worked, but the man tried to argue that her money had all been spent supporting the household, that all the investments, the home, the savings were from his money so he should keep it all!
Let's face it, heteros act distinctly unholy when their holy marriages come apart ... and sometimes before then.
I loved the line on Law and Order when one of the detectives said why shouldn't "they" (gays and lesbians) be allowed to marry and be as miserable as the "rest of us" (straights).

Well Ms., it seems as though many of our liberated women want to have it the "old way" like our mothers did when it comes to divorce. The supposition is that when a wife stays home it is to support her husband while he earns the income, rather in some cases (mine), I was completely responsible for our financial well-being in spite of her lack of support, in fact her ruining us financially, but I'm not bitter (ha ha).......still our family courts routinely tend to award women about everything unless their proven to be crack whores.

Bottom line is it'll be similar when gays get to divorcing.

That said, I still support equality, but just advise for all of us wanting to be equal, to also beware.

Divorce is never simple. It can be nasty and dangerous. But there is some modicum of protection provided to a married couple, even if it's only a matter of knowing the rules. You know going into a marriage what it takes to get back out of it and what the risks are. That's because there are volumes of law written on the subject. Cobbling together your own facsimile is expensive and hides dangerous unknown pitfalls. Civil unions and domestic partnerships have no protections at all as currently constituted. Write a civil union law with some teeth and we'll talk about whether it's a suitable subsitute.

I would say those who would jettison the word "marriage" at the first sign of opposition are as caught up, if not more so, in the semantics and symbolism of the situation as those who think the word itself is important in this debate. Why is anyone so scared of a word? It's the word our society uses to indicate a status being denied us. In order to get equal protection, we would have to completely change the definition of the word in our society. You don't think someone might object to that? No one says that someone who has no religious service, but is wed at city hall isn't married. Why should we settle for something that is patently less than what is due us just because we're afraid some bigots are going to be upset we're using a word they don't even have complete control over in the first place?

Well we have had gay marriage in parts of Canada for 2 yrs now, and so far I have read about 2 gay divorces. Both lesbian couples I think. Because divorce law language was not upated at the time of the marriage rulings the judges simply did the logical thing and ruled that the same rules apply for same sex couples as they do for dual sex couples.

No Nonsense in November

Someone should tell those No Nonsense folks how to spell "unnecessary".

And despite their claims, the constitutional amendment IS necessary, Not protect the sanctity of marriage or anything like that, but to bond conservatives. Nothing unites like a common enemy.

LXN

Someone should get over spelling when they use run on sentences made of fragments.

If you were heading to Massachusettes to get married, think again.

[ March 30, 2006, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

A sensible decision that followed MA. law.

For once.

The purpose of the law at issue here was to prevent miscegenation. I guess racial purity is a-ok!

BTW, the Goodrich v. Dept. of Health decision legalizing gay marriage in Mass was quite well-reasoned, so I smell the stench of needless baiting. Which is particularly unfortunate within the context of a type of love and intimacy practised by a majority of the members of Outsports. Hmm...

:confused:

I know what you mean MIB....How wrong and stupid would it be if a couple from California wanted to get married? Thank god for this law, because now they can't. I mean really...if Massachessetts started to allow out of state couples to get married, the next thing you know men will want to marry animals.

I don't think even you believe that.

As a matter of fact, given your conservative -even reactionary - approach to law, and the fact that you can't stand 'reinterpreting' law to fit modern sensibilities, I find your statements extrordinary.

Don't you get tired of constantly baiting people?

R

Actually, I understand the point of the ruling. As I understand it, the SJC could not find the law unconstitutional, although that does not mean the justices agree with it. The fact is, non-residents don't really have a lot of standing legally in any state.

That being said, of course the SJC's initial decision to allow full marriage equality for all humans made total sense. Since all humans are not made the same - some are male, some female, some in-between, some straight, some gay, some in-between. We all have rights.

This subject is the reason I quit the LCR. Yes, I am a gay Republican. Imagine that. I quit LCR because they wandered away from their purpose of supporting Republican candidates. LCR used to be a place where the few of us gay people that are not democrat kool-aid drinkers used to find solace. Now it has become nothing but an advocacy group for gay marriage. It's very disappointing. Seems now like almost always that being gay is more important of an issue to people than anything else.

Personally, I do not care about this subject. I pride myself on being independent and sself-sufficent without needing or desiring any of the perks that might be provided by getting "married." I don't need it. I do not need partner benefits and tax breaks from marriage because I am fully capable of providing that for myself as a functional, independent, and EMPLOYED gay man. Not to mention, why would I need a piece of paper issued by the government telling me who I supposedly love? Thanks, but no thanks.

I'm not so attention starved that I would have a need for my personal relationship to be recognized by anyone but myself and the person in the relationship with me. To some people, I guess that is just not enough.

Let me also mention that I do not care if you disagree. I am not accepted by and am more discriminated against BY the "gay community" for my viewpoints and because I am a Republican than I EVER was for being gay. It's sad but very true.

Serious question here--is the goal of the LCR, whether explicitly or implicitly--to support republican candidates or to advocate for gays inside the Republican Party? Both? To the extent that these two goals disagree, which one dominates?

Also, are you saying that anyone (gay or straight alike) who wants to get their relationship recognized by marriage is needy and attention-starved? That seems like the logical conclusion of your argument, but I don't think that describes the married people I know. It doesn't seem accurate to base your analysis of gay marriage efforts soley on your own limited life experiences.

I'm not disrespecting your views, just questioning them. You put it out there, I'm just responding. Then again, you don't care if anyone disagrees, so why did you post if you don't care about the responses?

Derby,

Regarding this one issue, I have to disagree with you. Gay marriage is not only about social acceptance of gays and lesbians in having a certificate by our government that gives us equal access to the same provisions as heterosexuals, the most compelling reason for gays and lesbians to support this issue is more of a selfless logic.

Since you are independent and self suffiecnt ( something I respect and admire), its almost naive for you to apply gays and lesbians to your reasoning for not wanting the same equality as you and they should accept society's sometimes discriminatory practices against gays and lesbians or simply decide to be similar and build a fictional moat around the castle and be oblivious to this issue in the real world because it has worked successfull for you.

Also, not only to build this moat, but to do this pertaining to this issue and distinguish one's self as outside the box compared to other that are gay in comparison that don't have the luxury of doing based on economic, cultural, or other other social dmeographics that come into play as is the same with all people in America is very simple and narrow minded.

What does that mean? In being friends for a long time with you and based off numerous discussions regarding this subject, it means a lot more than a paper that declares marriage and love between two people. If you simply don't want to to be associated with this plight that is understandable. Life is short and a lot going on. But, to be against it or have apathy, that is ludicrous to me on this one ISSUE. It means acceptance.

An acceptance that is needed and should be demanded. Gays and lesbians inherently deserve this the same as any people based on our plight. A plight that originated from a pre determined reasoning before we arrived into this world.

This acceptance that you seek because you are Republican ( for financial reasoning that stems more for selfish ideology ( which is ok), but to discared something that is part of your inner core and oppose others is simply wrong. Because others simply have decided the time for action is NOW, doesn't negate their actions. Actions that are a lot closer to your heart than you are proably aware at this moment in your life.

Even beyond the obvious, Same Sex Marriage will assist with self esteem. A self esteem for many gays and lesbian teenagers that come from non supportive families that don't understand their behavior as they have been instuilled its something evil or against nature. A self esteem that seems to rip out the hearts of good people that can't seem to deal with life as a gay or lesbian. Same Sex marriage is a way to validate ourselves and create a better lifestyle of future gaysand lesbians. Its all intertwined.

It will assist with reckless behavior such as sex and drug addiction that comes with self esteem issues. Additions and reckless behavior as a way to escape reality of being an unprotected minority living in a society that doesn't recognize you as equal. All behaviors the militant right applys to gays and lesbians without fully understanding the reasoning of why we are inferior. The same one's applied to African Americans who were deemed intellectually inferior to other groups of people even though they were up to 5-6 generations of them in the 1700's, 1800's and earlyu 1900's that were not given access to education, thus why would they have been on par with other groups of people? Kinda unfair when given and put into the proper context, right?

It will mean a need for closeted gays and lesbians to join others openly in fucntioning together to advocate a better awareness for gays and lesbians to society. A poriton of society that has difficulty understanding our lives that thought of us in context of sex, parades, and sinning, yet never sees the athlete, doctor, attorney, dentist, fed ex deivery man, colonel in the Army, Pilot, yet only see the flight Attendant ( not that there is anything wrong with that), figure skater, or hair salon owner.

Up until 3-4 years ago, I honestly didn't have an opinion one way or another when this issue was brought up in conversation on marriage. I was consumed on issues that were more selfish like being in my mid 20's and a kid in the candy store.

However, taken into account the militant right and their open platform of wanting to oppress gays and lesbians, the time is now for all gays and lesbians to use their financial, political, and any other resources to combat this ignorant element. Its an attack on the very fabric of who you are and it would be a DISASTER for a same sex marriage ban being implemented into the U.S. Constitution.

This would be an insult to every American. Even Cordella Scott King, the late wife of slain Martin Luther King spoke out against this and stated its the same as segregation of the post 1960's that allowed for violence ( lynching) against African Americans under the Jim Crow laws.

Its language that will be deemed as an open door to discriminate in any fashion against gays and lesbians and their is no agency or laws to protect gays and lesbians. Additionally, many will construe this as justification to possibly evoke violence and other actions against gays and lesbians as being something that is in line with America's values.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the militant right and their game plan. This is why not only defeating the proposal for a Same Sex ban. It of major importance to WIN the battle for same sex marriage as a way to extinguish the right and their secular mind set once and for all.

[ March 31, 2006, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

Anyone wanting recognition for something wants attention. Some people want it for "proof" that they love their partner or to have equal ground with heterosexual married couples. I say what difference does a ceremony or a piece of paper actually make in the depth of a relationship? Why do you need the government to recognize your relationship other than attention or some minor tax breaks? To verify your "gayness" as legitimate? To me, it does not matter who recognizes it outside of someone I am IN a relationship with. I do not need the fact that I am gay to be deemed legitmate by the government nor my relationships as such. Other than the perks and tax breaks you get from marriage, why bother? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say there are not many gay "housewives" out there.

Interesting fact...homosexuals have an average per-capita income that is close to TRIPLE that of heterosexuals. I am an independant business owner. I provide for myself, thus my personal view on why I would not need the benefits of a marriage. In some cases, I guess people do. It doesn't mean I have to support it and my choice to be apathetic about political decisions regarding the subject don't matter. I'm just not happy with the fact that LCR made it the forefront ot their agenda.