The merged Gay Marriage thread

[Jizzosh]

At it's simplest, if you can find someone you can stand for more than 5 minutes, let alone a lifetime... more power to you. I support anyone who wants to make an attempt at a lifelong commitment. I mean, I've been with my girlfriend for over 4 years now, and no part of me has started to think marriage, so for people to think about loving someone strongly enough to want to spend a lifetime with the, awesome. Go for it.

[NoseyJoe]

I agree that amending the Constitution is a bad idea, just for the simple fact that it is an issue that can be dealt with in other forums, other than the Constitution.

[chavos]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Well if you want to argue "Nature", homosexuality would definently be a dsiadvantage. Gay's don't reproduce, thus they will be eliminated from the gene pool.

The only way i know to make a gay person is to have two straight parents. obviously natural selection isn't working against it. "extra" adult individuals who do not bear children are an advantage in pre-modern societies-they can care for children, etc. their close relatives benifit, and the genes are passed on. two cousins are worth one child in terms of propagating your genome.

Originally posted by omega2K4
Why would heterosexuals want to get married?

Exactly.

[Sun Tzu]

Aside from what has been mentioned in this thread already; in my opinion this is the one issue that truly gives gay couples having the same rights the most debate; because if they are recognized as legally married then they are entitles to ALL rights; correct?

What are your thoughts? Click here

[tdoc]

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are a lot closer to the Oval Office than most people realize.

[Karby]

I don't know if this topic is around already, but i tried to do a search and i didn't find a topic similar to this one, so i'm making one. sorry if it's already here.

I read this article at another forum site:

Originally posted by Blacks42
Great Article I read today from Ernie's House of Whoopass:

Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated. They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof they've got a kid.

The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that long putting up with world class bitchiness beyond belief, you're gonna want some public recognition, right?

The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right? Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy. Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby in regards to her health care.

And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would.

All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.

So my question would be... what the f*ck do I care if gay people want to be married?

They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're not fighting for the right to **** on the crosstown bus. They're not fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the f*ck cares?

The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same sex marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!" they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One, where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children like f*ck toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church. I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and f*cking mighty, at least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.

And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a springboard for some loudmouthed @sshole to use and get his name in the paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever at home.

What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the 43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-F*ck-Up. The only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black, white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake.

this article pretty much sums up my opinion on gay marriages.
what's your take?

[lurkette]

Gotta agree. Government has no business regulating what is essentially a religious institution. "Marriage" should be an issue between a couple and their church; people who want to be committed to each other should have the same government-protected legal rights and responsibilities regardless of the genders involved. This has been pretty much argued to death around here, I think, but let's see if anybody has anything new to add.

[Superbelt]

Our elected officials voting to forever ban gay marriage and the rights that would come from civil unions with a constitutional ammendment is akin to voting against the civil rights act.

I could never in good conscience bring myself to vote for a single one of them, ever.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

That is the proposed amendment. "legal incidents thereof" is the part of the amendment that will block gay couples from gaining any benefits whatsoever from being joined. No co-insurance, no co-adopt, no hospital rights, no tax benefits.

It really is, and I don't use this word much. It's reserved for special occasions, Evil

[Phaenx]

Fred Reed wrote this:

In the country where I grew up, if you found a naked intruder in your daughter’s bedroom with a Bowie knife and a hard-on, you shot him and arranged to have the rugs cleaned. The sheriff wasn’t greatly interested and the country prosecutor didn’t see anything to prosecute. The scum floating on the gene pool wasn’t a protected species. It wasn’t the driving engine of the culture. It was just scum.

Today you would be charged with the use of excessive force. The cadaver’s family would sue. They would end up with your house unless they just ran you broke with legal bills. The outcome would depend on the racial make-up of you, the intruder, and the jury. Your daughter would be married with grandchildren before the courts reached any conclusion.

and:

In the old country, the government was pretty much benign or actually useful. It built roads and largely left you alone. The public schools were not great but neither were they terrible. People ran their own lives. The federal government tended to be somewhere else, which was a splendid place for it, and you mostly didn’t notice.

In the country that is now where America used to be, the government is the cause of most major problems instead of a solution, however inefficient, to a fair number of them. The government keeps you from educating your children, holds standards down, prevents you from hiring the best people you can find to work in your business. It won’t allow local jurisdictions to control crime, prevents localities from enforcing such moral standards as they see fit, virtually illegalizes the religion, of most of the population, and generally won’t permit people to live as they like.

Sounds good to me, assfuck on, patriots. Stop fucking parading so much though.

[johnnymysto]

Phaenx,

I don't understand what the Fred quotes have to do with the gay marriage issue. Do you mean the government is interfering too much in this case?

[johnnymysto]

I missed all of the other discussions on this issue, so what I have to say may be repeating someone else. If it is, sorry about that.

The whole issue of gay marriages and benefits has only picked up steam in the last five or so years. This was not an issue 10, 15, 30, or 50 years ago. No one would have even brought it up back then. It has been a process where first gays gradually came out in the open about their sexuality, then lobbied for laws to be changed, now for marriage rights to be changed.

It seems like the main reason people want gay marriages to be allowed is because "two people are committed to each other". Well, how about this: let's say over the next 10-15 years, threesomes become more of a fad. 15 years from now, MMF and FFM "unions" are lobbying for equal rights, marriages, benefits, etc. Are we to make the same exception for them? Hey, if three people are committed to each other, why not? The old-school Mormons were all about it, and after all it should be between people and their church, right? Or, what if NAMBLA really takes off, and now Man-boy or Woman-girl "unions" want equal treatment?

Where should this end? I believe it should end with one man and one woman.

[FoolThemAll]

Man-boy or woman-girl unions can't count. The latter in each isn't old enough to give proper consent. Same goes for man-goat; consent isn't possible.

For those who actually seek a three-person marriage, what's our reason for denying them that eternal misery?

[Superbelt]

Johnny Mysto, why not just channel Rick Santorum a little bit more and bring up Man on Dog unions? I mean, why not right?

The "slippery slope" argument is one of those things that shows you don't have a good argument against it.
"a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn"

It's done to distract from the real issue.

Now, for you Johnnymysto, can you give me any good reasons to deny marriage/civil union to a gay couple without bringing up a slippery slope again?

[pan6467]

The whole gay marriage became an issue when they wanted the same rights and perks that straight married couples had (death benefits, insurance, etc.). There is nothing wrong with that. Let them. More power to them.

People, NO MATTER WHO SAYS THEY CAN, cannot control emotions and the release of such. If a man falls in love with another man, who is to say that is wrong? Are they hurting anyone????? Are they out to destroy the moral fiber of the people? Not any of the ones I know, if anything, I have found most of my gay friends (both male and female) to be not only extremely loyal to ourfriendship but less judgemental, less holier than thou and far more supportive than many of my straight friends. Do they hit on me or try to shove thier lifestyle choice down my throat? NO, not in any way, shape or form.... just the opposite they respect me and most of my choices.

Then there's this government issue. Do we really need the government to be in our lives anymore than it is?

Let's say they pass this amendment, that now gives the government access and the right to dictate what we do in our bedroom. In doing so, anything other than the missionary position is illegal as sodomy would then be illegal (anything other than missionary position is defined as sodomy, that is in the MILITARY CODE OF JUSTICE) .

Now, with the Patriot Act and police rules, as lax as they are, this amendment would allow them a reason (like they need one) to come into your house at anytime.

The only people in my opinion not wanting gays to marry are those that are either homophobic because they question thier own sexual orientation, OR they want more control of OUR lives. Either way it is wrong and it will eventually destroy what freedoms we have, because just as the right say taxes never end so do the laws passed. They pass how and who you can marry, they'll push it as far as they can and NOONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I DO IN MY BEDROOM WITH ANOTHER LEGAL AGED ADULT.

[pan6467]

I have to laugh at people so stupid and ignorant as to believe the allowance for gay marriage will open the gates to animal, family or children marriages.

It is either sheer ignorance on thier part, or total self righteous bullshit, or an excuse because they can't think of any other reason to prohibit gay marriages.

[johnnymysto]

If you discount what I said about man-boy and woman-girl unions, you still have the polygamy issue to deal with. Why not allow that while we're changing the laws?

[Paq]

This is an aside, but "ain't nobody's business if you do" is a pretty good book, mostly touting libertarian ideas or just for the Government to keep out of private lives, what you do is your business.

Anyway, this book had one of the most striking points i've ever heard. Basically, it said something like: Currently, there is only 1 type of personal partnership recognized by the government, that of a man and a woman who are married/common law married. Imagine if all businesses were restricted to a singular type of partnership. Would there be an uproar by businesses wanting to combine, grow, etc...yes. Simply put, the government realized this and made provisions allowing several different business partnerships to form.
Essentially, the government needs to realize that people really do not want to be restricted in what type of partnership they can engage in. If 7 guys want to live together and receive whatever benefits, then fine, let them. It's their own business. If 3 guys and 4 girls do, fine, 2 guys, fine. whatever. as long as they understand what they are getting into and are willing to be legally bound together, then fine. What business is it of the government?

The other argument made is to simply remove the government's involvement totally. As in, a marriage would be simply between whomever and their respective religious institution. Anything not falling within the religious bounds could be decided upon by legal contracts instead. So if your church doesn't allow gay marriage, you can be legally bound to another person, etc, for purposes of insurance, debt, tax, child-parenting, whatever. Essentially, the government would only view marriages and other interpersonal relationships as binding contracts. Nothing more, nothing less.

I really don't see the need for the gov't to be involved in interpersonal relationships. But hey, that's just me

[lurkette]

Originally posted by johnnymysto
If you discount what I said about man-boy and woman-girl unions, you still have the polygamy issue to deal with. Why not allow that while we're changing the laws?

Why not, indeed? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, why not allow them to organize their legal and romantic affairs as they see fit?

The issue is that "marriage" as it stands automatically conveys certain benefits: inclusion in insurance policies, property rights, powers of attorney, etc.

I would propose that "marriage" as a religious institution should be separated from government oversight. If you want to get married, great. Talk to your clergyperson.

All the rest of it can be handled through the legal system. Allow people to put whomever they want on their insurance benefits as long as they pay for it. Make everyone who wants to be committed fill out power of attorney forms giving their partner(s) legal, financial, and medical rights if they're incapacitated. Allow non-biological same-sex parents to adopt their partner's children. There are ways to make things fair by separating the legal from the religious aspects of wedlock.

[johnnymysto]

Originally posted by pan6467
I have to laugh at people so stupid and ignorant as to believe the allowance for gay marriage will open the gates to animal, family or children marriages.

It is either sheer ignorance on thier part, or total self righteous bullshit, or an excuse because they can't think of any other reason to prohibit gay marriages.

Come on man, let's keep it mature and respectable. Anybody can throw out names.

[pan6467]

Imagine a world with no morality laws. No laws on what a person or persons (of legal age) can or cannot do in the privacy of thier own house. One where companies could make up thier own homes. It would be a world where people would be happier, more relaxed and more productive.

NO MAN OR ENTITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO ANOTHER WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT DO TO THIER BODIES, SOULS OR MINDS SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFER WITH OR HURT ANOTHER.

Now before some of you argue that what about DUI's or drugs on the workforce or whatever your self righteous minds can come up with. READ ALL OF WHAT I SAID, especially the part that gets overlooked the most THE PRIVACY OF ONE'S HOME.

If I want to have an orgy and smoke weed all weekend and trip on acid and shoot up heroin and snort coke as long as my neighbors are in no way in danger then it is MY AND MY GUESTS OF LEGAL AGE'S BUSINESS AND OUR BUSINESS ONLY. Noone has the right to come in and bust us for possession, intoxication, sodomy whatever. We're all legal age, noone is in danger, the government has no right to interfer.

I know that is an extreme and it would be beyond ignorant but those that want to pass morality laws are drawn to extremism to prove thier points.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally posted by pan6467
I have to laugh at people so stupid and ignorant as to believe the allowance for gay marriage will open the gates to animal, family or children marriages.

It is either sheer ignorance on thier part, or total self righteous bullshit, or an excuse because they can't think of any other reason to prohibit gay marriages.

I think your ignorant and disrespectful. People are entitled to believe what they want and in this case 62% of the country is not down with gay marriage. Damn those ignorant people will morals, they'll be the death of us all!

[pan6467]

I do appologize if you find me offensive. I am in no way trying to attack or belittle anyone personally. I just am passionate about my freedoms and find that most who argue to take freedoms away go to such amazing extremes to prove how they are right it boggles my mind.

Allowing gay marriage is not going to end the world. Nor is it going to open the floodgates to beastiality or pedophilia. That's just warping the whole argument.

It's all about CONSENTING ADULTS. Doing kids and animals is not about love it is about a sick attempt of power over another living being.

As for polygamy, don't you think that should be left up to the individuals? If my wife came to me and said she wanted to stay married but also wanted to marry some other guy, I'd get a divorce, but that's my attitude some maybe ok with that and that is thier business not mine.

[pan6467]

MoJo,

I am not saying that ALL PEOPLE who disagree with same sex marriage are ignorant and stupid. There are many who can and do argue with respectable points on morality that don't have to take it to the extreme of Beastiality/family/pedophilia.

It is when an argument has to take on those extremes when I laugh at the people who choose those extremes because they make no sense to the original argument. The argument is about CONSENTING LEGAL AGED ADULTS nothing else.

[tecoyah]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I think your ignorant and disrespectful. People are entitled to believe what they want and in this case 62% of the country is not down with gay marriage. Damn those ignorant people will morals, they'll be the death of us all!

First it is "You're " ignorant...or you are.
Second, If he is amongst the other 48%, does he get to have an opinion also? Or is he too ignorant?

[tecoyah]

So what if we had two types of marriage? One "under god" and one "under law", with the same rights. In this way the christians can still feel superior, and every citizen of this country can gain entitlement to the rights the deserve as humans in a society.

[johnnymysto]

Originally posted by tecoyah
First it is "You're " ignorant...or you are.
Second, If he is amongst the other 48%, does he get to have an opinion also? Or is he too ignorant?

I imagine this is how the other threads on this topic died out. Let's keep it a little calmer. This is a good topic for DISCUSSION, not flaming.

[Superbelt]

I challenge someone to give me a reason, not tied to the slippery slope, that marriage and all rights thereof, should not be extended to homosexual couples.

Is your only reason religious views? This country was founded on the basis of NOT being ruled by religion. Beyond the ceremony of marriage is just a lot of legal bindings. That's really it.
Why deny that to a subset of america?

There was a time that interracial marriage was illegal, Hell it still is in some countries (*And Bob Jones University)

[pan6467]

Ok......... my final point

Say I am gay have lived with the same man for 25 years.

First, in pretty much any religion from the time I was a kid I would have been told I was going to hell for my feelings and for my actions. EVEN THOUGH I HURT NOONE.

Secondly, in most cases the gay person's family (parents, brothers, sisters etc.) disown them or treat them as a shameful burden and won't accept them. My family is pretty liberal but I'm sure they would have problems, so I have to live with that guilt.

Thirdly, I have society that can get away with bashing me. Go to a gay bar where goons have beaten gays up, 99% of the time the police do NOTHING to the offenders. Plus, I have to live stereotyped as a weak infeminated person, jokes and abuse come at me pretty much from everywhere.

NOW, a society wants to add to these problems and say I am not entitled to the same rights with this man I lived with for 25 years that a woman would be entitled to? THAT'S MORAL?????? THAT'S BEING CARING??????

Nobody chooses to be gay. We all fall in love with a person who we find attractive and attractiveness is not just based on sex to most people. It's based on values, interests, goals, etc shared. Just because someone is of the same sex does not mean you cannot fall in love with that person.

[pan6467]

Ya all realize if we had socialized medicine this wouldn't even be a problem.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally posted by tecoyah
First it is "You're " ignorant...or you are.
Second, If he is amongst the other 48%, does he get to have an opinion also? Or is he too ignorant?

It is you're. Btw its 38%* not 48%. Let the people decide through a vote, I don't think its fair that it comes down to a 4-3 ruling in the courts.

[Superbelt]

Ya know what? 38% wins!

To get a constitutional amendment you need 2/3 of both houses of congress.

This is a Republic not a democracy. We protect the minority's rights here.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I agree with you. I'd still rather see it decided through the would be democratic/republic process of vote through amendment, even if it does fail.

[Superbelt]

Though I know it will fail, especially how it is worded. It is a sorry fact that a majority of americans are in favor of denying some type of rights to americans, and that a majority of legislators are in favor of denying all legal rights to homosexual couples.
It makes me feel ashamed.
I think what is going on with gay rights now is going to be our Civil Rights Act period. We are going to have a whole generation of legislators who will have voting to supress a part of the american population as part of their legacy.

I'll be watching the vote on this carefully. My congressman Todd Platts(r) has indicated that he will vote in favor of this amendment. I will be sure to campaign and contribute against him this time. (I voted for him last round)

Rick Santorum(r) will definetly vote for the amendment. Likewise for him. Arlen Specter(r) I don't know his position on this yet. But all voting "Yea" will have motivated me to not just not vote for them, but work against them.

[pan6467]

I had some respect for Santorum. Specter even tho a straight lined partisan should be cool enough to vote no. He is a good senator one of a dying breed.

[Superbelt]

Hmm... Do you have those two mixed up?
Santorum is the party line republican and Specter regularly crosses over and votes with the Dems.
Specter does that so much that an ultra conservative republican congressman is challenging him for his seat for 2004

“[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” –Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview

[Tophat665]

Here's the deal, whether or one supports, ignores, or abhors homosexuality is completely immaterial to the conversation. It is as pure a matter of equal protection under the law as one could possibly imagine. If two (or more, for that matter) people want to more or less permanently associate in such a way that the state grants them a status that in some way blurs their legal persons into a whole, then the sex of the people shouldn't matter any more than their race, age, weight, or religion. Unless we're really pushing to go back to the bad old days when miscegenation was a word most people understood, then we need to lay off this whole agrument.

Another thing that I ran across today, in a letter read on NPR, was a good question, "What exactly does the Defense of Marriage ammendment defend marriage against? That is, what damage to marriage could homosexuals do that hasn't already been done by heterosexuals?" That's the other thing that really gets me about this. What harm is there in this? Who's hurt? Where's there an aggrieved party?

Originally posted by tecoyah
So what if we had two types of marriage? One "under god" and one "under law", with the same rights. In this way the christians can still feel superior, and every citizen of this country can gain entitlement to the rights the deserve as humans in a society.

Actually, we do. The States grant the right to issue licenses to the clergy as if they were agents of the state, but the license is as valid from the county clerk as it is from the archbishop. So the license is the civil union, and any religious ceremony recognizing the people joined in that union is something else again, and from a legal standpoint, strictly optional. That's another reason why I just don't get what the fuss is about, both about gay marriage, and about calling it a civil union. I hardly thing separate but equal applies here. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then Cheney and Scalia are just as likely to shoot at it no matter what you call it.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Looks like Cali beat Mass. to the punch.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/12/ga....ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.

The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.

The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were hurriedly issued a license and were married just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one. One lesbian couple had already lined up outside City Hall, one of the women wearing a white wedding dress.

Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.

"Why shouldn't we" be able to marry? Lyon asked.

Thursday's marriage runs counter to a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

No state legally sanctions gay marriage, though Massachusetts could become the first this spring. The Massachusetts high court has ruled that gays are entitled under the state constitution to marry.

State lawmakers later passed a domestic partner law that, when it goes into effect in 2005, will offer the most generous protections to gays outside Vermont.

Mayor Newsom was not present for the wedding Thursday. The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.

The Campaign for California Families did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Looks like Cali beat Mass. to the punch.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/12/ga....ap/index.html

Sometimes I hate Cali and some times I love it, this time I love it.

[ChrisJericho]

This is America. Every citizen should have equal rights.

[Scipio]

There's a gay marriage thread, but I want to talk about the wording of this proposal, and why the president's position on it is dishonest.

President Bush backs this wording for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The story barely mentions the fact that it doesn't do what Bush says it will. It says that the US Constitution, any state constitution, any state law, or any federal law cannot allow the "legal incidents" of marriage. It allows civil unions in name only, and not the substantive common law rights that gay couples want (and that couples which happen to be straight have enjoyed for years). We're talking about things like inheritance and hospital visitation.

So, Bush supports a wording, says it will allow civil unions. Although it allows the state to create a status called a "civil union," it doesn't allow the state to grant any marriage-like rights under that status. Therefore, all it does is prevent the extension of simple rights and marital status by name to gay couples. Therefore, the President's position on the wording is correct only in the most technical sense imaginable.

He offers "civil unions," but doesn't offer us anything we can't put in quotes like that. His bill won't allow Civil Unions, complete with rights and stuff, but it will allow people to enter into a "civil union" in name only.