Same sex marriage considered legal?

[Minx]

On the news this morning was the history making story of two Ontario men whose same sex marriage has been legally recognized.

The premier of Alberta (normally a pretty level headed guy) has taken quite the strong stand against it.

I think that if two people are in love and are living together as a couple they should be allowed to marry regardless of their sex. Times have changed, families are not your stereotypical Mom, Dad and two kids ideal anymore.

Here is the full story from the newspaper....I'd like to hear what you think - should this union be recognized just as a "regular" one would? I think so.


Klein will block same-sex unions
Gays celebrate Ontario court ruling

Tom Olsen and Kerry Williamson
Calgary Herald

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Premier Ralph Klein has come out with his strongest comments yet against same-sex marriages.

Just hours after two Ontario men became Canada's first wedded gay couple, Klein reaffirmed Alberta will invoke the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' notwithstanding clause to prevent gay marriages.

The Tories will also urge Ottawa to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision that legalizes same-sex unions, and will seek a stay of the ruling so no more same-sex marriages can occur before the case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The federal government is reviewing the Ontario decision and has not decided whether it will appeal.

"The law in Alberta is clear," Klein told reporters at the Western Premiers Conference in Kelowna, B.C. "It's as clear as crystal. And that is, if there is any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages, we will use the notwithstanding clause -- period."

The clause allows Ottawa and the provinces to declare a law does not apply to them.

"There might be some people who don't like it, but the simple fact is, if they try to sanctify gay marriage, we will use the notwithstanding clause," said Klein.

The premier said his comments reflect the position of his Tory caucus and of most Albertans. If there is a movement in caucus toward embracing gay marriage, the premier said he would reconsider.

"I haven't seen that movement take place at all," he added.

Klein's comments came as Toronto men Michael Leshner and Michael Stark exchanged vows in a civil ceremony Tuesday afternoon, just hours after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled same-sex marriages are legal, deeming Canadian law on traditional marriage unconstitutional.

The court demanded Ottawa change the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "two persons," ordering city clerks to immediately begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.

The ruling was celebrated by gays and lesbians across Canada, including Calgary, where the decision was lauded as a major victory for human rights.

"This is a very big step in the right direction," said Bill Bickham, a Calgary man who says he has been married to his partner, Bruce Beal, for close to a decade. "A marriage is a marriage between two souls, not a man and a woman. And I think Alberta is ready for that."

The ruling means gay and lesbian couples can legally marry in Ontario, although their marriages will not be recognized in other provinces. It is the first time same-sex marriages have been legal in Canada.

Bickham says he would leap at the chance to be legally married if he could. He said that dream is now much closer.

"We had our commitment ceremony nine years ago, but we've never been recognized legally," said Bickham. "Both our employers recognize our marriage, all of our friends recognize it -- but the government doesn't.

"If we could get married legally, just like everyone else, we would have done it years ago. It's time. I think Alberta will follow suit, it might just take a little longer. This province isn't as redneck as people think. It really isn't."

Bickham said the biggest thing standing in the way of legal same-sex marriages in Alberta is the premier.

"As long as we have Ralph Klein, then we won't see it, but I think with any other premier, we would.

"I think more people will be happy about this decision than Premier Ralph Klein thinks. Klein has got to wake up, he's got to get himself out of his cave."

Calgary's Stephen Lock, regional representative for Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, urged the federal government to act on the Ontario decision and draft legislation that will apply to the entire country.

"If the federal government doesn't appeal this, and there is some indication that they aren't, it would come into effect across Canada, but as it stands, Ontario is the only province that recognizes same-sex marriages," said Lock. "Now, two people who are legally married in Ontario wouldn't have that marriage recognized in Alberta. That's really quite peculiar. The federal government needs to state categorically one way or the other."

Lock was not surprised by Klein's comments.

"Every time this comes up, he starts flipping around saying Alberta isn't going to be forced by the feds. But that remains to be seen," he said.

"Equality is about having equal rights. Whether me and my partner decide to get married is up to us, it's not up to the government to say you can't do that because we say so."

Last July, Klein said he supports gays' rights to pensions, inheritance and protection under the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Act, but his government would not allow homosexual marriage and would invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prevent it.

"It's the only circumstance under which the notwithstanding clause would be used without a referendum," he said. "And it would be automatic."

[JStrider]

i think its a good thing... why shouldnt gay/lesbian couples be able to get married? the only reasons i have ever heard were based completely on religious feelings... which in my opinion arnt valid reasons...

[The_Dude]

here in texas, they've passed legislation that makes it so that texas does NOT recognize gay marriages.

did you know that it is even illegal to have sex between two consentual adults of the same sex in texas?

somebody got busted doing that in their bedroom, and the case is now at the supreme court (sodomy laws).

this is life in the bible belt.

[JStrider]

The_Dude is right...

thats one thing that really blows me away about texas... its so so closed minded... but gradually the rest of the world is opening up... Texas will have to follow suit eventually...

[oblar]

Personally I believe that sex really shouldn't be regarded in marriage. Taking vows in a certain way may introduce the religious aspect of it, but then it is up to that religious organization whether or not they will perform the ceromony, but the only thing the government does is give a little license that allows you to get tax breaks in certain cases and new taxes in others..

I see no reason why two people, who feel they are in love, should not be able to get married if they wish.

this is just silly.. and all of the anti-sodomy and anti-oral laws that permeate (spelling?) the south are ridiculous. The only reason they exist is so that if they break in on a gay couple performing sexual activities then they can bust them on another charge.

it is absolutely ridiculous, especially considering the large number of straight people that perform those very same acts.

[ninety09]

Originally posted by Minx
On the news this morning was the history making story of two Ontario men whose same sex marriage has been legally recognized.

It's about damn time that we recognize same sex marriage.

[Lebell]

It is easy to hate and fear the unknown and faceless.

Once "they" have a face, it is harder to do.


(God Bless John and Mark.)

[Bob Biter]

To quote Kids In The Hall in a gay skit:

- "Aren't we just fighting to be trapped in loveless marriages? I just believe that gays were meant to live in sin."

- "Yeah, it's hotter that way."

Obviously, this is to be taken in jest. I support gay marriage wholeheartedly. Love should be the base of marriage, not sex (the act or state of being). More power and a happy life to the new couple!

[rockogre]

Originally posted by The_Dude
here in texas, they've passed legislation that makes it so that texas does NOT recognize gay marriages.

did you know that it is even illegal to have sex between two consentual adults of the same sex in texas?

somebody got busted doing that in their bedroom, and the case is now at the supreme court (sodomy laws).

this is life in the bible belt.

Not much better to your North. There are still small towns here that would probably tar and feather an openly gay couple.

A friend of mine died a year or so ago from AIDs. His brother never told me he was in the hospital because he didn't want to tell me he was gay.

I already knew.

[cheerios]

I have just this to day:

W00T CANADA!! stick w/ it, guys.

[gov135]

I think you should be able to be married if you want to.

But I don't understand why its so important. Isn't a marriage a public declaration of love to friends, loved ones, and community? Can't this be accomplished without a "legal" ceremony? Are these folks ties to one another any stronger cause they are "recognized?"

I guess its an equal access issue and I am probably not being sensitive to those who are different then me. But I feel that if you really care for someone, you can celebrate with that person and those around you.

That said, I'm happy for those who really want this, even if I don't quite get why.

[G_Whiz]

I am not going to bash the bible belt when California passed a Constitutional Initiative that specifically states that marriage is the union better a man and a woman. This was passed by popular vote, not legislative action.

My concern with this issue is not in the legal recognition of gay relationships. It is with the entire definition of marriage. From a legal and governmental definition, I think we need to use some other term than marriage. Marriage is a religiously charged term for a recognised joining of a couple. The majority of religions do not recognise marriages between individuals of the same sex.

I would rather see a clear definition of the legal binding of 2 individuals that does not carry the religious connotation. Then we can deal with all the legal ramifications, such as community property vs. common law states, rights to inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, rights to insurance coverages, Social Security rights, etc. With the religious connotations attached to marriage, those legal issues just get ignored in the self-righteous arguments.

I know that I am asking people to act in a logical fashion, which is illogical. See my signature statement.

[troit]

I agree with Minx on this one. Times have changed. We are all trying to live in a world that does not discriminate against race so why should we discriminate against sexual preference. "To Each Your Own". I may not agree with the practice but just because I don't agree with it does not make it wrong.....

[Minx]

Originally posted by gov135
I think you should be able to be married if you want to.

But I don't understand why its so important. Isn't a marriage a public declaration of love to friends, loved ones, and community? Can't this be accomplished without a "legal" ceremony? Are these folks ties to one another any stronger cause they are "recognized?"

I see your point here in that the actual piece of paper that says you are married shouldn't be that important. What should be important is how you feel inside, not what the public is willing to accept. And of course there is no doubt at all that same sex couples have the same emotional ties as any other couples. But, having said that....I would think that anyone in this situation would feel very strongly that they have just as much right to have their relationship legalized and recognized. I know if I were to be in this situation I would certainly want to have the same rights as two other people in love.

[smarm]

I think the reason that it is important is that the piece of paper entitles you to different rights and frequently different benefits than 2 single people (gay or straight). This ends up being an economic issue when a company now has to provide medical benefits, for example, or 401k beneficiaries change (by law your spouse is your 401k beneficiary in the event of your death unless specific paperwork is filed.)

Of course, on the other hand, the piece of paper entitles you to pay more taxes (in the US) under some circumstances.

None of the economic factors outweigh the pure human factor that two people who love each other and are willing to make the legal and binding commitment should be able to do so, no matter their respective genders.

I am glad to know that I work for a company that treats gay partners the same as married people if they request it... even if though it is "unfair" because they do not have the same legal bindings that my wife and I do.

[gov135]

Originally posted by smarm
I think the reason that it is important is that the piece of paper entitles you to different rights and frequently different benefits than 2 single people (gay or straight). This ends up being an economic issue when a company now has to provide medical benefits, for example, or 401k beneficiaries change (by law your spouse is your 401k beneficiary in the event of your death unless specific paperwork is filed.)

I wasn't thinking about economic reasons. You make a good point here.

[Molly Moon]

It would be nice if our politicians took the time to run their respective countries instead of trying to limit peoples pursuits of happiness.

No one is being hurt by this marriage. Give them a frellin' break.

[Prophecy]

G_Whiz about your idea of creating a second word for just homosexual "marriages", it sounds good and all but I could see that term, whatever it maybe, come to be considered a second class term. Homosexuals weren’t good enough to be married so they got “Insert term here”. Before long it could be come just another derogatory term for homosexual couples in the eyes of the “bible toting public”. If homosexual couples want equal treatment by the masses and for them to have respectability, at least legally, they are going to have to be able to say that they are married. Anything else would seem like a downgraded knock off of the term marriage for straight or “regular” people. Of course before that is going to happen, society as a whole needs to change the way we view things regarding sexual preference. Needless to say I don’t see that happening, especially in the South, anytime time soon.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally posted by smarm
I think the reason that it is important is that the piece of paper entitles you to different rights and frequently different benefits than 2 single people (gay or straight). This ends up being an economic issue when a company now has to provide medical benefits, for example, or 401k beneficiaries change (by law your spouse is your 401k beneficiary in the event of your death unless specific paperwork is filed.)

Of course, on the other hand, the piece of paper entitles you to pay more taxes (in the US) under some circumstances.

None of the economic factors outweigh the pure human factor that two people who love each other and are willing to make the legal and binding commitment should be able to do so, no matter their respective genders.

I am glad to know that I work for a company that treats gay partners the same as married people if they request it... even if though it is "unfair" because they do not have the same legal bindings that my wife and I do.

Agreed to all your points... except the last ones.

My wife and I lived together for a couple of years before we were married and she had no access to benefits. Yet, the two companies that we both worked for recognized Domestic Partners (same sex partners) yet did not recognized committed people who were living together but not married.

I believe that it rushed us to getting married. I'm happy to have married her, but our plan was to wed in Iceland. Since my benefits were going to lapse, she and I wanted to make sure that my healthcare was covered. Good thing too because I was hospitalized 3 times. But had we just been living together it would have been unfair that we had to get married and the domestic partners were covered.

[suviko]

*MEEEEPP!!!* Marriage has been recogniced in every culture, it has most likely been there before religions! It is NOT a religious thing. It is a social and cultural institution and religion has no monopoly on it. It also has no monopoly on other values the modern societies make so why the heck should it have it with this one. It isn't "just the matter of being in love". We are cultural and social animals, living in societies where it counts every day if you are married or not - it affects how people perceive you. I think people would stop believing gay and lesbian peopleare irresponsible sexmaniacs sleeping around and hanging in the bars to pick up new partners if it was recognised that they have families and live normal lives. And it's not just the economy of the family and health insurances and stuff, it's also their for the best for their kids. If the couple should divorce, the child whould have a legal right to a non-biological parent she/he has been living with and this parent to her/his child to meet them and seek joint custody.

So you think laws concerning sexual practices or preferences usually are fair and rational and work in effect?

Sodomy laws have been repealed—or are ignored—in most states, but not Georgia, where a man was sentenced not long ago to five years in prison for engaging in oral sex. With his wife. With her consent. In their home. His predicament has apparently been a source of considerable amusement to other inmates.

In the state of Washington there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night).

As recently as 1990, these states had laws against heterosexual fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex and the use of dildos: Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington D.C.

In Mississippi, S & M is against the law. Specifically, "The depiction or description of flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or in undergarments or in a bizarre or revealing costume for the purpose of sexual gratification."

http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages...ge/sexlaws.htm

[suviko]

Originally posted by Prophecy
G_Whiz about your idea of creating a second word for just homosexual "marriages", it sounds good and all but I could see that term, whatever it maybe, come to be considered a second class term. Homosexuals weren’t good enough to be married so they got “Insert term here”.

Yeah, that's how it works atm in Finland and it haven't developed into being demeaning, atleast yet, but it has sort of second class ring to it: "registered". "I got an invitation to registering party!" Huh?? Pretty romantic, nooot. I think they have the same right to act stupidly about gigantic princess or prince weddings with all the traditions and marryment involved with it and not forgetting the romantic part stressing the eternal love, even if this day and age it has been in somewhat downward course in the society.

And the thing is: Heterosexuals can't get registered, they are always married. So cut the crap about religious shit. I am an agnostic and don't belong to any religion or church, but if I marry a man, I get married. If I marry a woman, I get registered. If this is not a clear sign of what is considered normal than what is.

[Prophecy]

suviko, if your talking to me then personally I can't cut the "religious shit". I was born and raised in the Bible belt of the United States. It’s something that I've lived with my whole childhood. I went to church every Sunday as a kid. One thing I've come to recognize about the Bible belt is that people around here take the Bible very seriously. So it doesn't matter if it’s on the books or not, people are still going to treat it(homosexual marriages) according to there faith and beliefs. That in turn is going to change how they want to pass laws. Also, when you live in a place where people bring God into almost everything you can't escape the fact that you have to deal with people’s beliefs when you address their point of view. Also, every marriage I've been to was done by a minister, never by a judge. Thus God was always used, and marriage was mentioned as the union of a man and woman in accord with the God word. So what I guess I’m saying is where you live marriage may have nothing to do with religion but around here it does.

Also, all cultures form a religion when the culture is being made. Can you name one country on Earth that doesn’t have any type of religion that is worshipped by the people in that country? Or can you name a country where the majority of the people do not follow any religion? Religion and culture go hand in hand.
But anyway back to the topic at hand....

[suviko]

Prophecy:

I was talking to everybody.

People used to beat up their kids, and husbands had the right to trteat their wives as they wanted, rape or hit. It's not that long from the days when homosexuality was treated as mental ilness. The attitudes can be changed it the legistlation and the law enforcement address the issue, it won't go over night tho.

I can't name a country without religion, but there has been atheistic sects and cults already from the ancient times (like in Greece) and not all religions worship the same fundamental codes by every practitioner or even have any truely supernatural beliefs.

In Finland or in Japan, folks are secularized so that religion has not much to do with political stuff and how laws are made. So it is up to people wanting to change things where you live or not. Personally, I have always found it funny that Jesus preached about accepting the sinners like prostitutes, lepers, beggars etc. and no doubt he would have been the friend of gay people too, and then the christians condemn them. I read from anthropology book that most likely the part in the Book which condemns homosexual practices refers to babylonian religious practices, priests fucking eachother in the altar to worship and ask for fertility from the gods.

[The_Dude]

glad to see that we're all agreeing on something

[Minx]

I'd like to really oversimplify this.....I believe that two people (be they the same sex or not) who are in love and who want to commit themselves to each other should be able to do so. They should enjoy the same rights as other married couples. I think it's cruel to say their union isn't "right" or "proper".
This whole "registering" instead of "marrying" to me seems demeaning in a way. They are still differentiating between the two.
Just my opinion.

[4thTimeLucky]

Anyone who has been following my contributions on TFP will know what I think about this.
For those who haven't: Thank God another blow has been made against the state stupidly and unnecessarily interfering in people's lives.

What I find really interesting though is that a hundred years ago, in fact even fifty years ago, this thread would have been awash with "disgusting, shame on them" comments. Whereas now everyone - from lefties like me to TFP's fervant conservatives - is behind these guys and would think it odd if anyone said that they shouldn't get married. Even the christians amongst us seem to be okay with this now.

--------------
PS:
To all my unveiled driving friends: Where is everyone with their....

... "Tough Shit" ... "marriage is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT"...
... "The law is the law, and no one is above the law"
... "marriage is between a man and woman. that's just how it works" ....
... "Many people are very lucky to be in America.They should at least adapt to the culture rather than trying to change it."...
... "If the law states that two men should not marry then they ARE asking to break the law"...
... "Last I checked, "marriage" is not protected by any amendments to the constitution. It is not a right, it is a priviledge."...
... "this isn't rocket science... but then again, the lawyers are really running the show here aren't they?"...
... "Rule are rules, you don't follow them, you don't get married" ...
... "this world is full of rules, some of them don't seem "Fair", i say - GROW UP and GET OVER IT."...

*** Names have been left out to protect the identity of the innocent (you know who you are ) ***

[G_Whiz]

Originally posted by Prophecy
G_Whiz about your idea of creating a second word for just homosexual "marriages", it sounds good and all but I could see that term, whatever it maybe, come to be considered a second class term.

I guess I did not make my point clearly enough. I am NOT talking about a second word for homosexual "marriages". I am suggesting that we come up with a new term for ALL "marriages".

Religious groups can continue to have the rites of matrimony, i.e. marriage. But for legal and governmental purposes, there would be a new term for the binding of two individuals which provides the economic and legal guarantees that is currently only available to those heterosexual couples who go through a marriage.

Basically, I think we need a practical solution to a problem that keeps getting wrapped up in religious or moral opinions and not on the needs of the couples involved.

[suviko]

G_Whiz:

Yeah, been thinking the same thing.

[DEI37]

Yikes...this is just wrong...in my opinion. Marriage/weddings take place for a MAN and a WOMAN. Two women shouldn't get married...neither should two guys. I still haven't figured out why a guy would only want a guy anyways. We're made to want a woman. If I ever gave up that need, I would openly ask to be shot. Same sex marriage requests should be denied, and sodomy charges pressed.

[suviko]

Dei:

Why? Can you explain what is wrong with that and how is it out from you somehow that some other people and their kids can be happy?

[4thTimeLucky]

Wow, I wasn't expecting anyone to actually take up my challenge, but DEl37 seems willing to.

But wait a minute. I don't remember seeing him in the driving licence thread....

... So what's he doing? ....

Oh my God, I think he might just be serious

[VirFighter]

No problem with same sex marriages. It all comes down to personal freedom. I may not personally agree with what they are doing but I'll defend their freedom to do it. These people getting married has no harmful effect on anyone so why shouldn't it be allowed?

This story was actually being discussed on the radio when I went to pick up my brother this afternoon. One of the main arguements against this is that it would force business owners who did not agree with gay marriage for religous reasons to pay marriage benefits to gays. Interesting point, but my solution would be to either get over it or not hire gays, simple as that.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by G_Whiz
I guess I did not make my point clearly enough. I am NOT talking about a second word for homosexual "marriages". I am suggesting that we come up with a new term for ALL "marriages".

Religious groups can continue to have the rites of matrimony, i.e. marriage. But for legal and governmental purposes, there would be a new term for the binding of two individuals which provides the economic and legal guarantees that is currently only available to those heterosexual couples who go through a marriage.

Basically, I think we need a practical solution to a problem that keeps getting wrapped up in religious or moral opinions and not on the needs of the couples involved.

so, law should be re-written to suit religion?

i think it should be the other way around. religious groups can call it whatever they want, but under law a marriage is a marriage.

i really dont care about whether this offends religious groups, but i dont think we should come up w/ a new word just cuz it would piss off religious groups.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by DEI37
Yikes...this is just wrong...in my opinion. Marriage/weddings take place for a MAN and a WOMAN. Two women shouldn't get married...neither should two guys. I still haven't figured out why a guy would only want a guy anyways. We're made to want a woman. If I ever gave up that need, I would openly ask to be shot. Same sex marriage requests should be denied, and sodomy charges pressed.

wow, i was waiting for that.


and 4thtimelucky, he does meet and pass some of the stereotypes you listed!

you hit the mark, congrats!

[4thTimeLucky]

Originally posted by VirFighter
One of the main arguements against this is that it would force business owners who did not agree with gay marriage for religous reasons to pay marriage benefits to gays. Interesting point, but my solution would be to either get over it or not hire gays, simple as that.

Don't say that. Please don't say that.

What if the business owners didn't want to pay towards marriage benefits for blacks or for Muslims or for disabled people. Would you then say "get over it or not hire blacks"? That makes it sound like not hiring gays because you don't like homosexuality is an acceptable option. To me it isn't. That would be pure and blatant homophobia and discrimination.

If you don't want to hire gay people because they may marry then give yourself a good hard slap and get over your prejudices.

***
The_Dude

Maybe you didn't pick up on my point with those quotes.

They were not stereotypes.
Each of the quotes was taken directly fom posts on the Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil on Driving Licence thread from the last two days.

The only alterations were the replacement of "marriage" for "driving" where necessary.

Take heart, your own post did not make the list of shame.
Though I might ask you: If religion cannot be used to override the law, then why should sexuality be allowed to?
{Hint: You may wish to reconsider whether the people in either case really have any desire to override the law}

[VirFighter]

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Don't say that. Please don't say that.

What if the business owners didn't want to pay towards marriage benefits for blacks or for Muslims or for disabled people. Would you then say "get over it or not hire blacks"? That makes it sound like not hiring gays because you don't like homosexuality is an acceptable option. To me it isn't. That would be pure and blatant homophobia and discrimination.

If you don't want to hire gay people because they may marry then give yourself a good hard slap and get over your prejudices.

Please note that I personally don't hold these biases (I'm for the gay marriage).

I believe a privately owned and run business should be able to hire whoever it wants to hire with no intervention from the government. A good businessman will hire the most qualified person, not everyone is like this but oh well, nothing you can do about it.

But a private business like a private club should be allowed to hire or "admit" whoever it feels like. Sure it might be wrong to say "we're not going to let you in because you are black, white, hispanic, etc" but that's the individual group's choice.

If you don't want to hire gay people because they may marry then give yourself a good hard slap and get over your prejudices.

I agree 100% but it should not be the government's job to administer the slap.

[G_Whiz]

Originally posted by The_Dude
so, law should be re-written to suit religion?

Again, I think my point was missed. It is not to rewrite law to suit religion. It is to remove religion from the equation.

Let me state this in another way. Words have power. The word "marriage" has meanings to most religious or moral groups. If we create a different word for the legal bond between two individuals, we can then deal with only the issues of what the legal rights of the individuals are.

In most cases this would not require major rewrites of the laws in the United States. It is a substitution of one clear legal concept for one that has become unclear due to interpretations outside the legal realm. Legislatures take this kind of action all the time. Once the concept is entered into law, it can automatically apply to all benefits, etc.

This concept also does not preclude governments from recognizing marriage as meeting the conditions for the initiation of the legal bond. It is just that marriage in a religious setting isn't only one way of entering into that bond.

(I hang around too many lawyers and legislators. Now I sound like I'm writing the bill and arguing it in committee.)

[Sparhawk]

I can't pass up the opportunity to make a cut here-

Further proof that conservatives want smaller government- just small enough to fit in your bedroom.

Gay marriages rock! It sucks they have to hide behind the 'civil union' thing to get the same rights as us straight folk (not to mention having to go to Vermont of all places to get it!)

[Prophecy]

Originally posted by G_Whiz
I guess I did not make my point clearly enough. I am NOT talking about a second word for homosexual "marriages". I am suggesting that we come up with a new term for ALL "marriages".

hmm, i guess that changes my reply...
Anyway, I'm still of the mind that people in the south are never going to allow same sex marriages to pass into law. It would cause a very serious up roar. Good or bad, I don't see it happening.

[~springrain]

Originally posted by ninety09
It's about damn time that we recognize same sex marriage.

took the words right out of my mouth...