The issue of Homosexual Marriage is diminishing MY marriage

[Misinformed01]

Michael and I (JanMichael) were married one year ago Saturday; it was the happiest day of my life. Every single day that I look at my husband's face, I am amazed at how very much I adore him, and how incredibly lucky I am-

There has been one big ugly cloud over our marriage, and that is the Homosexual Marriage issue.

Until our friends, and my favorite Uncle, are given the EXACT same rights and priveledges that we are....and I mean Marriage...not this pansy assed "Civil Union" shit...then I cannot fully enjoy what we have. Just by meeting and marrying this wonderful man, I have become an elitest, and that just burns my behind up that the RW jackasses are affecting my personal life.

Liberals need to get together on this issue. We have a segment of the population that is being persecuted folks. That sucks for ALL of us; it diminishes all of our lives.

Stephanie

[truthspeaker]

1. "No one is free when others are oppressed."

[Mara Steele]

2. Stephanie! Thanks for the great, supportive post!

:loveya:

:yourock:

:toast:

[Misinformed01]

3. You are welcome

This issue is just burning me up; it's definetly time to organize--

[Mara Steele]

4. It really cheered me up to see...

& you're absolutely right...

[fudge stripe cookays]

5. Testify, Steph!

Very well said.

You're uncle is a lucky guy to have such a great niece! :D

PS-- Congrats on your anniversary!

FSC

[terrya]

6. Thank you, Steph!

This gay man thanks you for putting it so well.

And it's always gratifying to know our hetero friends are with us on this. :-)

Terry

[Alpha Wolf]

7. Please clarify...

you said:

"Just by meeting and marrying this wonderful man, I have become an elitest..."

I didn't understand what this means.

[Misinformed01]

8. An elitest in the sense that what I have--my marriage--

is not a priveledge that an entire segment of our population can enjoy.

Kind of like not being allowed into a private club. Does that help?

[Alpha Wolf]

47. Yes, thanks.

n/t

[arwalden]

9. Thanks, Sweetie!

-- Allen

[Misinformed01]

10. I wasn't trying to be sweet!

I want people to be as angry as I am; I am so sick of this shit, Allen! This issue is not getting the attention it deserves--"straight" people are ignoring this because they think it doesn't affect them--

Steph

[arwalden]

12. I Know... We Need More People Like You!!

Your words and efforts are very much appreciated.

-- Allen

[sui generis]

11. it kind of comes down to some very basic principles

(when you think through what the RW nutjobs believe)

1. that gay Americans shouldn't have the same rights as straight Americans.

2. that being gay automatically makes one immoral, because being hetero automatically makes one moral.

3. that marriage is to conserve families, and since gays don't procreate (and shouldn't), they shouldn't have families.

4. that children need to be protected from being forced to grow up in a house with two fathers or two mothers, since it's not the "perfect" home.

5. that being gay violates the laws of nature.

REALLY.

Well, Americans are American - we don't get an ID card at birth that identifies us as "gay Americans" or "straight Americans". Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation, any more than it has something to do with eye or skin color. There is no such thing as a perfect home. Having a wonderful home and a future with loving parents trumps having no parents at all every time. The laws of nature are a bunch of crap. If we had stuck to the laws of nature we'd still be swinging in the trees and flinging poop at anything that didn't look like us.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ASanders84]

14. Alot of wingnuts I know

seem to think that people are gay because society makes them that way. I guess I'm straight because of society then?

I agree, I'm sick of this issue too and it should be pretty damn clear that gays should have the right to marry. If Kerry is in office, this will get done. If Shrub is, don't hold your breathe.

[Paschall]

15. I appreciate the support

But this is about Kerry isn't it?

I don't think his civil union proposal is "pansy assed" by any stretch.

Ask your favorite uncle if having the exact same 1049 federal rights guaranteed to married persons is enough for him. Or if those rights also have to have the label "marriage."

My guess is that he'll take the rights no matter what you call the arrangement.

I certainly will as soon as Kerry pushes his proposal through. And, being an expat, I already enjoy civil union rights under French law. Kerry's plan is far superior to the French civil union law. Kerry's plan is full equality. All 1049 federal rights. Sounds hot to me!

[Misinformed01]

16. Hi Paschall!

I remember you; I was "Thtwudbeme" for most of my DU life-

No, my post wasn't about Kerry--it was about my personal anger towards RW "Christian" nutjobs that are ensuring that non-heteros do not enjoy life to the fullest extent possible.

I am glad Kerry is pushing the full equality civil union plan...and no, it's not enough for me. Wanna know how far I want this issue taken? Churches losing their tax exempt status for refusing to have and allow non-hetero marriages. How 'bout them cookies?

[Paschall]

22. Hey, Thtwudbeme!

Thanks for the clarification ;-)

Actually, I'll up the ante and say we'll let the churches keep their tax-exempt status, but the federal government gets to seize and manage all their assets!

That's how the French solved the problem of church and state about a century ago. Nôtre Dame, like the Cathedrals of Reims and Chartres, belongs to the French Republic not the Catholic Church.

[Misinformed01]

23. OK, NOW we are talking!

:)

It's good to see you btw! Love seeing the "old" DUers show up on threads-

Stephanie

[Paschall]

28. Me, too

And love learning about (old) news... like your marriage! Much belated congratulations! :toast:

[SemperEadem]

74. a 21st century dissolution of the monasteries

not a bad idea.

I feel all adults who want to join legally to one another should all have to have a civil union. Those that want the blessing of a church wedding can go ahead and do that, according to their denomination's requirements, but it is not required for the marriage to be recognized by the state for legal/tax purposes. But having a church wedding in no way elevates, or sets apart as better the marriages that take place within the confines of a church wedding service.

Once you obtain the license, you are considered qualified to marry.

What pisses me off about this whole issue is that the fundamental cases who disagree with the direction that Bush is taking are willing to vote him back into office solely based upon his support of the constitutional ban on gay marriage. That means that they will put him back into office to send their children and grandchildren off into a forced draft, possibly to be killed either in Iraq or by 'friendly fire'--which renders you just as dead as if done to death by enemy fire. They don't care that they're sending human lives off to be snuffed out, just as long as a gay person cannot legally have their marriage recognzied by the state.

[comsymp]

17. Steph- Have I mentioned lately

how much I adore you?

[Misinformed01]

21. no, you have been neglecting that!

Good to see you! :)

[botchan]

18. This is such a "Non-Issue"

The right is holding this issue up in the air and too many Americans are gawking at it blankly and blindly while the real issues are shoved under the table. I am sorry that you do not like the words "Civil Union," but we should all have civil unions. The state should issue civil union contracts. They become binded by a judge or court. Churches, synagogues, etc... should perform marriages. States should separate themselves from the entire issue. Ask anyone that has been divorced, marriages are "Civil Unions." They are binding contracts that need to be dissolved by a court.

Try to focus your friends and particularly your undecided ones on issues not concerning faith.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but this drives me nuts. If you love someone, live with them, marry them, civil union them, etc...

[Misinformed01]

19. Pardon me, but what issues are being shoved under the table?

I am hoping to be accepted to Divinity school to be a minister. This issue is very important to me-

I realize that all marriages are civil unions--but, I want my non-hetero friends to have the full monty--the whole deck of cards-

[botchan]

24. I understand that...

my point is that the right is using this issue against you (us). In a secular society, we all should enjoy the "Full Monty" however, this issue separates the voter base and they (the right) know it. We, the enlightened left, understand equality in the eyes of the state and God (whichever one(s) you worship), but it seems there is a large group of individuals that want to make this issue a major election point and we can't afford that this year.

Also, I must reiterate that churches, synagogues, etc... should perform marriages in the religious sense and as far as the state is concerned, it should be (is) a civil union.

[Misinformed01]

29. I thought that way too

I would have agreed with you---except that I have to think about the history of Presidential elections in the US. Could Kennedy afford his stance on Civil Rights Liberties following the conservative 1950's? Seems like it would have been better for him to keep his mouth shut then, eh?

Johnson?

Clinton?

Face it, we got burned by thieves in 2000, and now we are too pussy whipped to stand up and say what we really think, and want.

[botchan]

32. That America, This America

The America of the late 50's early 60's actually watched the news (a different news at that). I lived in a very liberal state (Hawaii) for some time and this issue even split that state. The issue was voted down there, much to my chagrin.

With the small un-informed voter-base that exists in this country, this issue should not be fore-front. I would like to see civil change on this, but I don't think it is the debate that is necessary at this moment.

If we want to come out strong, we should be attacking Dumbya heavily on his idiocy and the fact that he is not in anyway making the decisions in his administration. We should be calling him a liar (not us, our candidates) in public and openly. We should be calling for the ousting of Dick Cheney, etc... Let's start there.

[botchan]

30. Issues under the table

The Radical Right is holding up "Gay Marriage" while Halliburton, Illegal War, etc... goes running behind. Can you picture it? No, no, those aren't real issues, we have explained them, but look at this "Gay Marriage" destroying the foundation of your Christian values. Look at it! Look at it! Touch my Monkey! It is bait and switch of major proportions. Keep the voter based focused on their pseudo-values while not really discussing the state of our nation.

The prejudice in our country makes this a difficult issue. And in my opinion it isn't one to focus this election on. Am I in anyway clear or am I coming in like a scrambled porn channel?

[Misinformed01]

31. No, you are clear

I just think that you are wrong. I understand exactly what you mean...seriously, I do---and I addressed that in my post above.

It's scary going up against the GOP right now with anything other than "we support the troops." The idea of losing to the Nazi's is seriously frightening people into shutting up--and feeling guilty when bad things happen that will reflect badly on Shrub make them secretly smile (IE: the stock market dropping like a rock)--

What the GOP has done to this country is horrifying.

Stephanie

[The Wielding Truth]

46. Back on track

Yes it is divide and conquer.This issue should be is a non issue in Fed Gov because it is religious in nature . They only way it would be relevant would be if it became illegal to marry in our own individual religious services.Anyone can establish a church where any marriage within the guidelines of that church is a moral marriage. That marriage would have the blessings of that church,however if the Fed Gov would rule marriage within a founded religion to be illegal there would be a basis for legal action and Fed and citizen action.
This is how I understand it .

[The Wielding Truth]

43. Thanks for having a larger view.

Government should not legislate personal religious beliefs.Marriage is a sacred religious rite and should be preformed by any sect that believes in that marriage .The license is for the legal union of the two parties not sanctioned by any church or holy institution. They are separate . A marriage without a license is not immediately recognized
although common law may apply after a lapse of some time depending on the state in which you live.
If I have this wrong please let me know this is what I understand to be true.

[Rockholm]

20. I Got Married Last Month.....

The world hasn't ended. Truth is, here in Massachusetts, it seems to be a non-issue at the moment. The only time it gets bad is when the RW stirs it up. So far in my Boston suburb, there have been many marriages, some with wedding announcements.

[bear425]

33. Congrats on your marriage, but...

I live in Florida. Yes, we can come to Mass. and "get married", but it will not be recognized in our state of residence, so what's the point?

You say that it seems to be a "non-issue" at the moment. You sound happy that a small segment of lucky Mass. residents are able to enjoy equality under the law? What are the married gays in Massachusetts doing to make it an "issue" across the country?

I, of course, think it's fantastic that at least we have one of our "united" states recognizing gay marriage, but I will not be satisfied until it is legal in all 50 states. How 'bout you?

[Misinformed01]

34. Bear....I won't be satisfied

until churches themselves lose their tax exempt status for failure to recognize non-hetero marriages...I won't be satisfied until we can lose labels like "Gay." I won't be completely satisfied until every single person in the US has the ability to have and enjoy every right that every other person has.

I am really pissed off here.

Stephanie

I think I want to be elected Leader of the Homosexual Agenda. Sweeeet! :)

[bear425]

35. Thanks Stephanie

Glad to hear your support. The argument from the right and some of the mods is that we can protect ourselves through legal documents like a will, living will, power of attorney, etc. Well, we've done that but...

My partner and I have been together for 24 years. She almost died nearly three years ago. Along with being totally emotionally devastated, I would have been denied the financial security of social security and pension benefits.

How is that fair and equal? Again, thank you for being vocal! Unfortunately, it's like preaching to the choir here at DU.

[Misinformed01]

36. No, Bear. The problem is that it's NOT preaching to the choir

at DU.

The problem is that this issue does not affect "straight" DUers, and that because of that, it has become a fringe issue.

The attitude that I mostly see on DU is "yeah, let them get married...OK, now on to the IMPORTANT stuff."

Stephanie

[botchan]

50. I don't think that is it

the whole idea of marriage has been bastardized by RR. They have changed the whole item to a "Christian's Only - Men and Women at that" item. The whole thing needs to be removed from the state! It is also a state issue and the Fed. Gov. should just recuse itself every time it comes up. We try to make too many things a federal issue.

It is not that those of us who are "straight" don't see the importance, it is that it is so logical we don't understand why everyone else doesn't...

Lets face the issue that we will never get the RR to accept the issue and approach it in a separation of church and state item. It makes a logical and legal argument. What happens between your God and you should not be part of the state!

[bear425]

58. Yes, you're right...

I just meant that most DUers are, at least, not opposed. I applaud you for speaking out and having passion for this issue that, ultimately, affects us all. Have you checked out the Human Rights Campaign website?

http://www.hrc.org/

This is a good place to start reaching out. Again, thank you!

Patty

[Barret]

78. Errr...

I firmly support same sex marriage.

I do not, however, think we should attempt to force a church to recognize it. First, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. Second, who cares if bigots want to congregate, and who would join them? Only other bigots more than likely. If the KKK were forced to admit non-whites do you REALLY think a non-white person would want to join?

I think a church should lose exempt status if it gets involved in politics. Other than that I can't support attempting to make them accept government beliefs so long as they are not hurting others or forcing them on others.

[Baltimoreboy]

86. WTF

Who gave you the right to FORCE churches to accept something they don't want? Doesn't that violate the 1st Amendment? (It does.)

[Misinformed01]

88. Taking Tax Exempt status from churches

is in no way forcing them to accept what I want.

If they want to play the US Tax Exempt game, then shouldn't they have to conform to standards of non-discrimination? I personally don't give a damn if they are handling big serpents every Sunday at noon.....just as long as EVERYONE in the US is allowed to come in and grab their own rattler out of the bag.

Is that too much to ask?

Why is it OK for public institutions ...and when a big assed institution accepts federal tax help, then are they not public? (hint: Boy Scouts of America....or rather Boy Scouts of Straight America) for them to be allowed to discriminate?

Why are churches a Sacred Cow in this country? When do we stand up and say "Oh, fuck that! They are WRONG."

[Rockholm]

39. Move to Massachusetts.....

My husband and I have had opportunities to live in a number of places over the past nine years. One option is for us to move to South Carolina (where I am from originally). Politically, I could not do that. Why would I want to be in place that does not want me. I know all about queer visibility and all, but I do not wish to subject myself to that.
Given the barriers Florida has put up for gay people, in respect to adopting for instance, I would say fuck it and move. That's thats just me.
I do forimly believe that one day soon, equal marriage will be nationwide. That is why the RW is so freaked out. Scalia was freaked last year when the Lawrence case went in the favor of gay rights. He is scared that we gays will actually be legally equal.

[bear425]

55. I understand what you are saying but...

I really don't want to move to Mass. I so can't take cold weather. I just don't think that's the answer for us. I mean, this is the "United States". That's what I just don't understand. I never really understood state constitution differing from country's when it comes to civil rights.

[botchan]

59. Many items are state controlled

Items from marriage licensing to education are more a "state" issue than a federal one. During the development of our country, our very intelligent forefathers realized that the states needed power to keep the federal government from controlling all areas of our country. It helps keep us from becoming a dictatorship. The balance of state powers to federal is an important issue which a lot of Americans have forgotten.

[bear425]

63. Yes, I realize your very cogent points

But civil rights should not be left up to the states. Do you agree?

[botchan]

64. Yes, I agree

but licensing and contract law (of sorts) should. Marriage, in its current form is a contract between to unrelated (by blood) individuals. This is a state issue. The discrimination against gay individuals is a federal issue.

[Rockholm]

73. Its more than a state issue.

A straight married couple from another country can move into the US, become citizens, and have more rights than me. That is not fair. THe fact that some immigrant can more here and have more rights than me pisses me off. I say this not against "immigrants" in general but let me tell you a story.
During the constitutional convention here in Boston, I joined hundreds of pro-gay marriage supporters insides that State House. We sang patriotic songs for 16 hours each day and tried to get our representatives to hear our pleas for equality. While standing there, religious zealots in orange scarves began infiltrating our midst, shoving their way in. One man and a woman stood directly behind me, praying in Spanish. Loudly. There must have been 50 or so of them. They mocked us, carried signs in Spanish mocking us and it was revolting. How dare these people who do not yet know what it is to even be an American try to take away my liberties and my freedoms, especially in the name of religion.
My ancestors arrived in this country hundreds of years ago. They fought in every battle to make this country, from the Revolution through the Gulf War (and both sides in the Civil War). I for one will not allow anyone to take my freedoms away.

[botchan]

79. Emotions away

That is a nice argument, but no concrete solutions to the issue. We should not change the constitution or federally mandate the situation in any way. My opinion is, that to solve this problem it needs to go in front of the supreme court. The supreme court must rule that it is unconstitutional (federally) for states to deny civil union agreements (marriage) between any two individuals. They must decide that there is no difference between a business contract and a marriage contract. I know that this belittles the feelings of married individuals (me being one of them), but state marriage licenses are contracts. By not allowing homo-sexuals to obtain marriage licenses the state is discriminating against gay individuals. At this point it becomes an issue of civil rights and then it becomes a federal problem. This has to move through the courts. There are too many RR and the issue is far too polarized to solve through demonstration alone.

I think that you may be under the opinion that I am against Gay Marriage, but I assure you that I am for a truly free society.

[lukasahero]

25. I figured you were heading

this way with your subject line and was interested to read your thoughts. Honestly, I've been having similar ones. My SO and I are getting married in Sept. and we were both honestly torn about the fact that we are allowed this privelege when so many of our friends are not.

We are somewhat cheered because we live in Massachusetts and our gay/lesbian friends are now entitled to the same opportunity we are - here. (Screw the a$$hole organization from FL who tried to f*ck with the reading of our constitution by our judges!) But there is far to go and it will be a mixed emotional bag to celebrate our wedding with friends from other states who still can't do the same.

[Misinformed01]

26. The guilt from this is really something, isn't it?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts...a September wedding in Massachesetts should be gorgeous!

Stephanie

[redqueen]

27. Yay you!

I find it unbelievable that this is even debatable... who knew the christian version of the taliban would be so welcomed here?

I'm hearing sentiments here that nobody really cares... as in 'let them get married... how does it harm me?' I've seen very lackluster support for this stuff here in Dallas, but it may be stronger in rural areas.

Keep sending in those convincing LTTE's, folks... with open dialogue (and frequent comparisons of the radical RW to the taliban) we can get this puffed-up hyperbolic RW crap baloon deflated and ensure the country is firmly behind gay marriage or at least full equality for civil unions by early next year, I'm sure of it!

[PeaceProgProsp]

37. I'm more worried about my friends who don't get married

regardless of their genders because they aren't religious and don't want the religious stigma.

I know unmarried couples who have children who don't get married because marriage is a religious thing and they're not.

They give up hundreds of rights and privileges (and also avoid burdens which may inconvenience one of them, but benefit their children and the other spouse a great deal).

Until we can religion out of marriage and turn it into a legal relationship, our society will no be running on all cylinders, the way it should be.

Let's get the government out of the marriage business, and get it focused like a laser on making sure people have all the rights they need to have secure, wealthy, happy families.

Leave marriage to the churches.

[The Wielding Truth]

49. Not convenient but still there

Anyone can have a contract drawn up to give them the legal rights you speak of. Can't they?

[Rockholm]

71. No, they can't. Look at Virginia...

They have either passed a law or are about to, that will render those types of personal contracts illegal.

[SemperEadem]

75. hopefully, that will be struck down as unconsititutional

interfering in the legal dispensation of assets is wrong. This discriminates against a sector of the population who are otherwise legally fit to enter into a binding contract.

[PeaceProgProsp]

72. You shouldn't have to pay a lawyer to get what everyone else

gets just by being married.

Give marriage to the churches, I say. Make the government give everyone, regardless of sex, the rights we give married people and make it automatice -- a one-stop shop.

That's what the government should ALWAYS be doing for people: make it easier for people to be good workers, and good family members. Make it easier for people to be happier. Make it less time-consuming to do things.

[tom_paine]

38. HAPPY ANNIVESARY!

...you commie pinkos!

:hi: :toast: :party: :bounce:

Hope all is going well with you all.

[Misinformed01]

40. Thank you!

I think I have moved somewhat to the Left since marrying the world's most precious Socialist! Who knew????

[tom_paine]

41. I thought Albert Einstein was the World's Most Precious Socialist

:evilgrin:

[Misinformed01]

42. He MIGHT have been

if Michael hadn't been born.

Besides, it's commonly known that Michael is smarter, and much better looking than this Mr. Einstein you speak of. He told me that, and I know it's true.

[CaTeacher]

44. I agree that we should all have equal rights--

I am leaning toward Civil Unions for everybody though.

I don't really see any religious aspect to marriage (as a non-religious person) or any need for churches to be involved. However, if any particular couple wants to perform some sort of religious ritual to additionally "bless their union" they would of course be free to do so--but the religious ceremony would have no legal standing.

[Misinformed01]

45. And I agree with you somewhat...but, let's be very clear about this

if a church refuses to recognize same sex marriages, or perform them, then they should lose their tax exempt status. Period.

They should anyway, but...hey...I want to use that right now in my argument, and I am going to.

[botchan]

51. Are you saying

that we should regulate religious beliefs? Come on now!!!

[Misinformed01]

53. No. I said churches that discriminate should lose

their tax exempt status.

I don't care what they want to preach or how they practice it; however, if they are going to be political and discriminatory, then their tax benefits are gone.

[botchan]

54. but...

To limit how they can interpret the bible is legislating their beliefs. Let a church do what they want. Once we start saying what constitutes a religion (we do this already go talk to Wiccan) we are legislating religion and have removed religious freedom.

A church should have the right to allow Gay Marriage or not. It is not the governments place to legislate that.

[Misinformed01]

60. Ending tax exempt status for churches is in no way

legislating their beliefs, or saying what constitutes a religion.

[botchan]

61. I guess I took offense to

"if a church refuses to recognize same sex marriages..." that is a kin to saying -> believe our way or... That is a RR type of sentiment, but in the other direction. I think that a lot of religious organizations do great things with their "tax-free" money. Hell, I think all individuals should be tax-exempt. Only businesses and corporations should be taxed... (my opinion).

Even the evil "Catholic Church" (I say this tongue and cheek BTW) does a considerable amount of good with their money. I don't think we can help gay couples with taxation.

[botchan]

52. exactly my point above!!! This is how it should be!

[hippiegranny]

48. Happy Anniversary!

Know that even though I cannot legally marry my honey, I do not begrudge you and Michael your happiness! Thank you for your support; it is people like you that will pave the way for change.

[Nadienne]

56. I am never going to get married.

My boyfriend is fine with it, too. We're just going to live together, forever and ever (or until one of us dies), happily ever after...

And I very pointedly rub this in the faces of those who keep pushing for me to get married. It's my choice, and I choose not to. They're insulted about gay marriages. They think marriage is a priveledge, like an elite club. I thumb my nose at their elite club. They can have it. If that's what marriage is to them, then it's obviously not about love.

That being said...

Happy Anniversary!

:)

[Misinformed01]

57. Uh huh....we weren't either

Be careful! That marriage bug hits the most innocent and unsuspecting bystanders! :)

[SemperEadem]

76. only if you're not innoculated against it

marriage is a lottery--ask the divorced.

[skygazer]

62. Another point of view

Well, here goes. Personally, I don't think it's right that people who are married get benefits anyway. I choose not to be married (because to me it is a business contract - marriage is after all mostly about money and property in the legal sense - and I have no interest in being bound by a contract that is not of my own making) and really feel it's unfair that people who do decide to make that contract get benefits. Why should they? Do they contribute more to society than single people or people who live together? What is it about marriage that entitles people to get benefits?

I'm not saying I'm against marriage for those who desire it - I just don't see why anyone should benefit more by being married than by not being married.

[Misinformed01]

65. I understand your opinion, but in the meantime

Our non-hetero citizens of this country do not have partner health benefits; if one of them dies, the surviving partner has no say in distribution of said wealth (even if they have been making half the mortgage payment for 25 years)....the list goes on and on.

I am sure that you understand that while you have your right to your opinion, you must take this issue of an entire group of people being treated like third class -or less- citizens under the law....and God help me...in Federal and State tax exempt institutions.

[skygazer]

67. You misunderstand me

I do think it's completely unfair that gay and lesbian citizens don't have the full rights of all Americans as they should.

My question is why people are rewarded for being married in the first place.

Personally, if I had a mortgage with someone, I would draw up papers that would specify ownership and distribution upon the death of either owner. Same with other issues - powers of attorney, etc. I am not knocking either gay people or marriage. Perhaps I should have kept my opinion to myself - I thought I was asking a valid question.

[botchan]

69. Not attacking you

Were not attacking you, we are discussing your opinion. You are welcome to it and we are glad that you have one and we welcome you to express it. :)

Now, on your mortgage issue. You would have to start a business with that individual (partnership agreement) to purchase the house jointly. You could use them as a co-signer, but that doesn't make them the legal recipient of the home when you die. It is a difficult portion of the law. Married individuals can buy homes and other items jointly because they are a "legal entity" in the eyes of the law.

[botchan]

66. Actually

Other than the benefit of legitimacy, the other benefits are the ones you are trying to avoid. Property and income protection - benefits for insurance (family coverage, life, etc...) and the like. In all actuality married individuals are taxed at a higher rate and we are bound to the other individually legally. This legal binding protects (to some extent) families and children (Dad, Mom runs out, dies etc...).

Which marriage benefits would you like removed?

[skygazer]

68. Why is everybody so pissy?

I'm not trying to avoid benefits - I prefer to draw up my own legal contracts. I also didn't say I wanted benefits removed - I simply asked why we reward marriage in the first place.

'Scuse me for registering my opinion. I shall take my flu and go back to bed.

[botchan]

70. see my other reply

I am sorry if your opinion doesn't feel welcome.

[democratreformed]

77. I agree! Sort of.

I don't feel that the issue diminishes my marriage. I think each marriage is what the persons involved make it.

On the other hand, Britney Spears diminishes the "idea" of marriage as a whole.

I do believe that homosexuals should be able to marry. I believe that they should have the right to share their love and lives just like heterosexual couples. But, I believe it's important for them to have the legal right to marriage because of all the other "legal" things that depend on it. I can't even imagine having something happen to my husband and being denied entrance to his hospital room.
That must be devastating for those who have experienced it. There are so many other things that depend upon that legal issue that are important, but this is the one that touches me the most.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. A nice reply

I am glad you do not feel your marriage is diminished, it should not be!!!

You said something that struck me...in February of this year, our furnace blew up in my partner's face. By the grace of the gods, he was not killed! He did suffer burns to his face, arm, hand, and his good ear (had his cilia been burned out, he would have been completely deaf). The emergency personnel were totally rude to me, even pushing me to the side and not answering my questions. They then told me they were taking him to the hospital. There is only one, but we had just moved here and I had no idea where it was. To compound the situation, it was snowing!! In Oklahoma!! The roads were a mess! The ambulance left and I had to call his parents and tell them what happened, then I had to drive to the hospital. When I got there, the nurse asked for his information, which I gave, but because I was not his "wife," she had to ask if I could go back to the ER to be with him. I seriously thought about "tucking back" the "package" and donning a wig just to get to him! :) However, she got me back there. He was in horrible pain.

The doctor was very rude to me. He barely spoke to me, instead speaking to my baby (my partner), who was drugged and in pain. The nurses were GREAT!!! NURSES ROCK!!!! They let me stay with him and escort him to his room. As the doctors came in, they didn't even acknowledge me! Again, the nurses keep me in the know and were very kind to me! NURSES ROCK!!! The doctor was not even going to let me stay, but the on-duty nurse brought me a cot (as if I could sleep).

Thankfully, he has recovered fully!

So why did I respond to your particular response? Because I wanted you to hear a real medical emergency situation that does have a happy ending (except for the damn bills). But, I also want to ask that you (and others like you), please, help us (gays that want to marry)! You are straight, your voice will carry much weight with those who don't know gays. You will not be viewed as having a "vested" interest in gay marriage. When I ask for equal rights, I am told I am only interested because it effects me! It affects us all!

So to you ma'am, thank you!! And thank you to the originator of this thread!!! I am glad I am here with people like you! :)

[JanMichael]

80. You're the best baby!

I'm the luckiest lefty on the planet:-)

Interesting to see some of the "Liberals" on this issue, kind of reflexive in their lack of support for all people.

Oh well.

Love ya!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Worst of all we can't get married but we CAN get divorced!

So it seems the heterosexual agenda of commingling funds and having a mess at the end has been hoist upon us by a California Supreme Court oversight. In re: Marvin versus Marvin there was no distinction as to gender in the final analysis so that case law applies to homosexual dissolutions as well as hetero dissolutions...so Martina couldn't marry her lover but she can be MADE to pay her palimony. Ain't THAT the fucking shits?

Anyway...love ya Steph and Misunderstimator and I will make you our Maid of Honor if we ever tie the knot...wait..you own a Subaru and a pair of Birkenstocks..maybe we'll make you the Best Man :D

[Misinformed01]

82. Best Man!

Yeah!!!!

"If you ever tie the knot......" ummmmmmmmmm I am not going there in public...will call you tomorrow! :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. No call Sunday AM

Tomorrow I will be working in the AM and in the evening we're busy!

[Misinformed01]

84. Sunday!!! You know Michael is in church all day on Sunday!

Praying for me, and lighting candles for you--

Sunday it is, then!

Steph

[ulysses]

87. I've been married for eleven years

and I approve this message. :D :thumbsup:

Happy anniversary, guys!

[Misinformed01]

89. Thank you Uly!

You rock!

And we have been thinking of you and Mrs.Uly too....I hope ALL your dreams come true this year! :)

Stephanie and Michael