Gay marriage making head way

[Cosworth]

Looks like this country is slowly moving toward the 21st century. Perhaps in my life time all people in this country will actually be treated equal under the law. I am looking forward to seeing that. Hopefully the voters will not let their prejudice block the ruling.

Mariage legal in CA Jun 17

NY is set to recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.


NEW YORK — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.

Full article

 

[usairbear]

 

[Cosworth]

I love it.

 

[delldude]

Looks like this country is slowly moving toward the 21st century. Perhaps in my life time all people in this country will actually be treated equal under the law. I am looking forward to seeing that. Hopefully the voters will not let their prejudice block the ruling.

Mariage legal in CA Jun 17

NY is set to recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.


NEW YORK — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.

Full article

OK Gar..............

 

[USAir757]

I wrote on this topic in another thread, and I'm glad that it was brought up again, because I think it deserves further conversation. Hope nobody minds if I quote myself

"...I do think that there still lies a problem in the terminoligy. We need two different terms to describe two different things:

1) Civil Union: a government recognized, legal union between two people of any sex where they will be entitled to equally enjoy the benefits of a legally joined couple. Any two people who wish to join into a civil union may do so, provided they are not already in a civil union with another individual, and they pay the court fee.
2) Marriage: a religious sacrament governed by the church or sect in which the marriage is carried out. No governmental control, recognization, oversight or benefits.

It is not our government's duty to define a religious agreement, and it is not the church's duty to define any legal agreement. If we can seperate the two, I believe everyone can walk away happy."

I'd be interested in others' viewpoints on this, especially from a gay individual's perspective. I truly think it is a case of misused words, and if we can change our perception of the definition, it could provide a pathway to solving this dilemma for people on both sides.

 

[KCFlyer]

It is not our government's duty to define a religious agreement, and it is not the church's duty to define any legal agreement. If we can seperate the two, I believe everyone can walk away happy."

I'd be interested in others' viewpoints on this, especially from a gay individual's perspective. I truly think it is a case of misused words, and if we can change our perception of the definition, it could provide a pathway to solving this dilemma for people on both sides.

I'm not gay, but I agree with that first statement. I don't believe it is the "gay side" that is calling it "gay marriage". I think that was a tactic of the right to whip up support in the church congregations, telling them things like if we let gays marry, then soon you can marry a horse or a dog, and heave forbid...they'll force churches to conduct the ceremonies. How many pulpits was the term "civil union" used? Not many....instead it was "gay marriage". Why is that? Because "sanctity of the civil union" just didn't get the voter turnout.

I think that all gays wanted were the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples who were "married" by a Justice of the Peace or an Elvis impersonator in Vegas (the latter somehow didn't seem to offend "the sanctity of marriage as long it was a man and a woman being wed by the king).

 

[Cosworth]

USAir,

I agree with you 100%. The government should not be in the marriage business. Marriage is a contract between two people.

I do not know if it is possible to change the way people view/interpret the word marriage. We as a society are so used to the word but the problem lies in the fact that there are several different definitions of the same word. Those who are religious consider it a religious sacrament (I believe). Folks such as you and I look at it as a contract tha affords the people involved certain benefits. And I am sure there are variations in between.

I have gay friends and they have indicated that all they want is to be able to have the same rights as any other couple. Two of my friends just got "married" in Canada and for one of them to change their name was a monumental undertaking. He had to pay several hundred dollars, had to go before a magistrate to get 'permission'. My wife did not have to go through any of that. It is patently unfair. Given that we advertise the US as the land of the free and that all people are supposed to be seen as equal under the law, I would say we have quite a way to go before that is true.

 

[Seatacus]

What group do you think will be the next one to want marriage............................?

 

[Kev3188]

It is not our government's duty to define a religious agreement, and it is not the church's duty to define any legal agreement. If we can seperate the two, I believe everyone can walk away happy."

Exactly.

The right to be married should apply to anyone, and be overseen by the government. This would encompass things such as estate rights, health benefits, etc. Basically the "nuts and bolts" of any union.

The rite of marriage should be confined to the church or where people choose. The state should stay out of that part.

 

[Cosworth]

What group do you think will be the next one to want marriage............................?

As far as I am aware, the only group requesting to be married are humans. What other group did you have in mind?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Looks like ..2008 will be THE year...that sets the..."right Wing Nuts"....the furthest BACK, of any year in US HISTORY

 

[KCFlyer]

As far as I am aware, the only group requesting to be married are humans. What other group did you have in mind?

men and sheep, horses or dogs. IT was the biggest talking point in one of the megachurchs here in the KC area when the "gay marriage" vote went before the people.

 

[USAir757]

men and sheep, horses or dogs. IT was the biggest talking point in one of the megachurchs here in the KC area when the "gay marriage" vote went before the people.

Scare tactics - like you said. It's much easier to draw a line in the sand to separate human from animal - but human from human is a whole different story. They would want you to believe that if you let one in, so comes the other. But again, they want people to be afraid so they can push their own agenda, regardless of whose lives they affect.