Sweden - Gay Marriage Now Legal In.....

[Julessleuther]

Well, because "traditionally" marriage comes from the religious ritual of "marriage", and that is what the civil laws of our country are based on. It is only considered "legal" because of the religious background of the ritual. As far as Obama's views, isn't that generalizing? Obama has made his position on gay marriage very clear. To state that every democrat feels the same or similar to him is not accurate, just as it is not accurate to state that every Republican feels the same as McCain. Generally McCains views were quite "liberal" for the Republican party, and that is the main reason he did not win--he did not get the conservative Republican vote because he was moderate. They just chose not to vote. The conservative Republican vote he DID get was only primarily because he had Palin as his running mate. If more conservative Republicans would have voted, he would have won, the margin was not that great between the two.

IMHO, most gay people want the option of marriage, even if they personally do not want to get married. I don't necessarily understand what you mean about "going after" the definition of marriage. Marriage is a legal term and a legal institution - they would like their most personal and primary relationships to enjoy the rights, respect and protection that comes with that institution.

As for Obama's personal views on gay marriage - regardless of whether or not Obama's views on the subject are/were the exactly same as theirs or not, Obama's (and the Democratic party's) views on the subject are much more in line with what many gay people want that the alternative - McCain and the Republican Party.

 

[EmMomma]

Marriage is a civil right.
Period.
Just think, less than 75 years ago it was illegal for blacks to marry whites in many states.
Would that fly today? NO WAY.

 

[gogrannypop]

Gogrannypop :blowkiss: will you be my new best friend?

Yes, yes I will.

 

[southcitymom]

You are absolutely right about the issue of civil rights and blacks, and a point I had not considered. We are working on civil rights issues with our 2nd grade classes (I am a teachers asst.) and I was just discussing today how, as a child, in the early 1970's, I was oblivious to all the controversy surrounding blacks and civil rights. As a white child in school, my best friend was a black girl, but we did not see each other skin color, we just saw our friendship. I agree that every person should be treated equal, but why does SEX have to come into the equation? Isn't that private? Why do people need to even know each others sexual preference? Are we breaking it down too much? I will review the links you provided, thank you for your kind and respectful insight.

I have a 2nd grader and he has studied civil rights a lot this year - it's been great and has led to some awesome dinner conversations!

I appreciate all your questions, Jules - they are good ones and fair ones and ones I have considered along the way

As far as knowing people's sexual preference, we all just DO notice - you can't help but notice who people are partnered with romantically - if you're dating someone of the same sex, folks assume you are homosexual; if you're dating someone of the opposite sex, folks assume you're heterosexual and if you're dating everyone, folks assume you're bisexual. :crazy:

I don't feel like this is about sex. I mean, frankly, (with the exception of one act), we all pretty much do the same things physically regardless of our sexual preferences - we kiss and hug and touch in various ways.

When I decided to marry my husband, I didn't do it because I wanted to announce my sexual persuasion to the world. I did it because I wanted to build a life and a family with him. Gay people are no different than I am. Except it is tougher and more stressful for them to build lives and families together because they cannot partake of the benefits of the institution that is so freely offered to me because I happen to want to share my life with someone who is the opposite sex.

You and your black friend didn't feel any strangeness or difference or taboo - only love and friendship - that is a beautiful, real experience and it is an experience that was not have been supported by many many Americans for many many years.

We have come a long way in racial equality. We're struggling to move towards equality in this arena now. IMHO, our children's children will look back on the prejudice we've shown towards our gay brothers and sisters with same same sort of embarrassment I feel when I think about separate water fountains, restrooms and, of course, much worse...

 

[southcitymom]

Yes, yes I will.

Excellent! I'd propose to you, but, alas - I am spoken for!

 

[southcitymom]

Well, because "traditionally" marriage comes from the religious ritual of "marriage", and that is what the civil laws of our country are based on. It is only considered "legal" because of the religious background of the ritual. As far as Obama's views, isn't that generalizing? Obama has made his position on gay marriage very clear. To state that every democrat feels the same or similar to him is not accurate, just as it is not accurate to state that every Republican feels the same as McCain. Generally McCains views were quite "liberal" for the Republican party, and that is the main reason he did not win--he did not get the conservative Republican vote because he was moderate. They just chose not to vote. The conservative Republican vote he DID get was only primarily because he had Palin as his running mate. If more conservative Republicans would have voted, he would have won, the margin was not that great between the two.

I was generalizing, Jules, but I think it's an accurate generalization. Republicans have been very vocal in the fact that they do not support gay marriage and Democrats have been much more supportive of gay marriage.

That said, I don't think Obama won or lost on this issue. I don't think the Repubs had a chance in hell of putting a President in the White House this year.

 

[southcitymom]

Jules,

In my zeal for this issue, which I feel so passionate about, I want to apologize if I come across in such away as to seem unsympathetic for the very real concerns and even fears that many people have concerning gay marriage. Pardon the pun, but I do understand that this is not a black and white issue - and I understand the need to be careful and respectful of each other as we climb towards the inevitable changes that are coming down the pike.

 

[gogrannypop]

Excellent! I'd propose to you, but, alas - I am spoken for!

Me, too. Many years and 3 kids later.

ETA My grand kids are 6, 4 and 3 years old. They constantly talk about Pres. Obama. Black or white, gay, straight, We are all humans and should respect one another as such.

 

[EmMomma]

New York State Assembly Votes in Favor of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

http://www.hrc.org/12692.htm

 

[Julessleuther]

You in no way came across unsympathetic to the concerns and fears of people, and I thought you had many valid points. You are very respectful, thank you. At the basic level of people, you are correct, we should all be equal. I am Republican, but on a certain level I will agree with you that some Republicans are unbending and stubborn in their opinions. Some will never change. I, however, am open to change, as long as people are respectful of each other. For example--while I believe that we should teach tolerance to our children for all, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, I do not think that peoples viewpoints need to be shoved down peoples throughts just to prove a point. Some people--Republicans AND democrats, gays AND straights go too far, IMO.

Jules,

In my zeal for this issue, which I feel so passionate about, I want to apologize if I come across in such away as to seem unsympathetic for the very real concerns and even fears that many people have concerning gay marriage. Pardon the pun, but I do understand that this is not a black and white issue - and I understand the need to be careful and respectful of each other as we climb towards the inevitable changes that are coming down the pike.

 

[Nova]

Me too, me too!!

I know a few gay couples who could care less about marriage, given the absolute MESS most heterosexuals make of it.

We can all name heteroseuxals who have decided to remain single, after a bad marriage or without ever being married at all. Nobody would seriously suggest that straight people are somehow not worthy of the right of civil marriage just become some of their number choose not to exercise that right, or because some exercise it poorly.

I understand gay people who reject formal marriage on the ground that it is a "heterosexual" institution. (I find their view shortsighted (NOW: there was a time I agreed with them), but I understand it.) But rejecting marriage because some straight people do it poorly is rather childish, I think, and probably a defensive reaction to not being allowed to marry the partner of their choice.

I don't think we can know how many gay people will choose to marry once they have the right. The numbers in Massachusetts and, briefly, in California have been rather impressive, given that gay people are a small minority.

 

[Nova]

Ok--so if it is a civil union, then why don't gays support a civil union law? Why do they go after the definition of marriage? Do gays want to get "married" or do they want a civil union? If they want a civil union, why are they not saying that? I am not Truly not trying to be disrespectful, on the contrary, I want to extend the same respect to all, I am just so trying to understand the whys and hows of the controversy. Why then, does Obama want marriage to be between a man and woman, and why did so many(85%) gays vote him in office if his viewpoint is contrary to theirs?

Jules, most of us want full marriage rights, but we settle for civil unions as better than nothing. Likewise, most of us voted for Obama because while we wish he supported full marriage rights, he is far less hostile to us than the other party. And he seems to have an open mind. Who knows how he may feel by the end of his presidency?

Even we gays who were legally married in California (at least until the Supreme Court says otherwise) have to also maintain a domestic partnership (civil union). My husband/partner and I have both, because some states and countries recognize one and not the other, so if we were traveling and any sort of emergeny happened, we might need one or the other.

I'm not authorized to speak for all gay people, but I find nothing disrespectful in your posts. Quite the contrary!

 

[Nova]

Well, because "traditionally" marriage comes from the religious ritual of "marriage", and that is what the civil laws of our country are based on. It is only considered "legal" because of the religious background of the ritual. As far as Obama's views, isn't that generalizing? Obama has made his position on gay marriage very clear. To state that every democrat feels the same or similar to him is not accurate, just as it is not accurate to state that every Republican feels the same as McCain. Generally McCains views were quite "liberal" for the Republican party, and that is the main reason he did not win--he did not get the conservative Republican vote because he was moderate. They just chose not to vote. The conservative Republican vote he DID get was only primarily because he had Palin as his running mate. If more conservative Republicans would have voted, he would have won, the margin was not that great between the two.

Are you sure hardcore conservatives sat out the last presidential election? I know some feared that might happen, but I haven't heard any authority say such a boycott materialized, perhaps because of the Palin choice, as you say.

Civil marriage may have originated as a religious ritual, but then ALL law was once associated with religious dictates, as societies didn't used to distinguish between the secular and the sacred. But that is NOT true is this country and is specifically prohibited by our national constitution. Which is why we have legal divorces, whether or not those divorces are sanctioned by every denomination.

Obama has said he supports civil unions, but prefers a traditional definition of "marriage." That's still a far cry from the GOP, which has supported attempts in various states to ban even civil unions. Moreever, Obama also said he OPPOSED our Prop 8 banning gay marriage, so I'm not sure his position is "very clear," as you put it.

 

[Nova]

Gogrannypop :blowkiss: will you be my new best friend?

You *advertiser censored*! I'm away from WS for a few hours and suddenly I'm replaced!

Good choice in gogrannypop, I admit, but damn!

 

[reportertype]

We can all name heteroseuxals who have decided to remain single, after a bad marriage or without ever being married at all. Nobody would seriously suggest that straight people are somehow not worthy of the right of civil marriage just become some of their number choose not to exercise that right, or because some exercise it poorly.

I understand gay people who reject formal marriage on the ground that it is a "heterosexual" institution. (I find their view shortsighted (NOW: there was a time I agreed with them), but I understand it.) But rejecting marriage because some straight people do it poorly is rather childish, I think, and probably a defensive reaction to not being allowed to marry the partner of their choice.

I don't think we can know how many gay people will choose to marry once they have the right. The numbers in Massachusetts and, briefly, in California have been rather impressive, given that gay people are a small minority.

I think I worded that rather poorly; I was sort of joking in that the argument that gays being able to marry will somehow "hurt" the institution of marriage is quite ridiculous.

Now, I do know a couple who have no desire to get married thought they've been together many, many years. They do believe everyone should be afforded the same rights, however. :blowkiss:

As for the rest of your post, as usual, you have taken what I think and worded it much better than I can.

 

[Nova]

You in no way came across unsympathetic to the concerns and fears of people, and I thought you had many valid points. You are very respectful, thank you. At the basic level of people, you are correct, we should all be equal. I am Republican, but on a certain level I will agree with you that some Republicans are unbending and stubborn in their opinions. Some will never change. I, however, am open to change, as long as people are respectful of each other. For example--while I believe that we should teach tolerance to our children for all, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, I do not think that peoples viewpoints need to be shoved down peoples throughts just to prove a point. Some people--Republicans AND democrats, gays AND straights go too far, IMO.

With respect, Jules, you might not call it "shoved down people's throats" if you were the one denied equal civil rights. Nobody is saying churches should be forced to marry couples if doing so violates church rules. Nobody is saying anybody has to attend a gay wedding, if he or she doesn't want to go.

All we are saying is that everyone should have the same right to marry the one person of his or her choice. I fail to see how that really affects anyone except the parties involved and their families.

I suppose everyone now has to broaden his or her understanding of what constitutes a civil marriage; i.e., everyone has to "get used to" the idea. But people had to "get used to" the notion that blacks weren't slaves, women could vote, etc. As far as I know, nobody died from the effort.

 

[Nova]

I think I worded that rather poorly; I was sort of joking in that the argument that gays being able to marry will somehow "hurt" the institution of marriage is quite ridiculous.

Now, I do know a couple who have no desire to get married thought they've been together many, many years. They do believe everyone should be afforded the same rights, however. :blowkiss:

As for the rest of your post, as usual, you have taken what I think and worded it much better than I can.

reporter, I hope it was clear I was using your post as a reference, not because I was arguing with you. (I actually included a note to that effect, but then took it out.)

I don't think you worded anything poorly. I've heard gay people say exactly what you wrote. But I think it's sort of a "you can't fire me, I quit" sort of thing.

For years, I said I would never marry legally because I wouldn't do anything to suggest the decades we were together were somehow "less than" those that came after a ceremony. But when the opportunity finally presented itself, I felt an obligation to demonstrate that gay people could marry without destroying the universe. (Also I'm older, I have children who weren't legally related to me, I'm a lot more sensitive to issues such as what will happen to my estate when I die.)

When we finally got married, however, I discovered the difference it made to our children, family and friends. That sold me on the concept.

 

[Nova]

Jules,

You mentioned a couple of other points that didn't fit in my other replies...

1. Yes, gay people can have wills and powers of attorney, but those can and have been contested. When my now partner/husband and I first had ours drawn up, the attorney warned us that a hospital might choose to ignore our wishes and our only choice would be lengthy litigation -- long after the medical matter was settled without our consent. Moreover, there are so many marriage rights, it's practically impossible to draft personal documents that are equivalent in every respect.

2. Under our system, majority rule has to be balanced against minority rights. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions the rights of gay people aren't spelled out as explicitly as those of women and racial minorities, so the courts in some states are sorting it out. The California supreme court may well uphold Prop 8, but it will do so only on the basis of the crazy way California law allows our constitution to be amended. The court has already ruled that gay marriage should be legal under the constitution as it was written before the election.

3. My remark about gay rights waiting for "people to die" wasn't rude, it was a statement of demographic fact. The fact is that young people in California and many other states vote overwhelming in favor of gay marriage, so it will become legal as the older generation dies off, even if courts don't order it in the meantime. But as my original statement made clear, neither I nor anybody else thinks this is the best way.

 

[southcitymom]

You *advertiser censored*! I'm away from WS for a few hours and suddenly I'm replaced!

Good choice in gogrannypop, I admit, but damn!

It's true that I'm a faithless female, but you were the first person I feel head over heels in love with :blowkissn the Interwebs and that has to count for something!

 

[Nova]

It's true that I'm a faithless female, but you were the first person I feel head over heels in love with :blowkissn the Interwebs and that has to count for something!

They do say "the first" is always special. But don't women agree it's also almost always lousy?

I don't know whether my hurt feelings are soothed or not.