Your thoughts on same sex marriage and civil unions.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I don’t support marriage at all. You shouldn’t need a license to commit to someone. #18 more or less nailed it. (pardon the expression)
But, like so many things, as a practical matter, we’re stuck with it (marriage), and therefore, I voted No on 8, and in the real world, as it actually exists, consenting adults should be permitted to marry whomever they wish. It’s their dime.
As another practical matter, even if gay marriage were legal in California, as it now is in Conn. and Mass., the federal government, whose rules govern so many of the financial benefits (and costs) associated with marriage still doesn’t recognize it. The fat lady, in this case will be the United States Supreme Court, and until she sings, the game ain’t over.
#47 – BdgBill
>>It hurts marriage as an institution. The same way
>>that easy painless divorce has hurt it.
I might agree with you on the “easy painless divorce” point, although it has certainly led to a higher PERCENTAGE of CONTINUING marriages that do not involve physical and mental abuse, philandering, etc.
As to same-sex marriage hurting marriage as an institution, wtf? Are you going to go out and marry a man, just because it’s legal? Do you think that ANYONE not previously predisposed to do so will go out and marry a man just because it’s legal?
Among all the absurd arguments against gay marriage, that is probably the most absurd.
#56 – Les
>>If a partner wants to leave, imagine the problems
>>custody. It cant ever be good for the kids.
And that differs from single-partner marriage exactly how? Problems with custody, bad for the kids, seems like the same old same old, to me.
#58,
the only justification of government involment in marriage is to protect the parties when it ends. That protection should be extended to all people.
I have been with my partner for 18 years and we got married on the 1st.before the ban in California passed.
I do have to agree that the fight is all about a word but the reason we got married is for the rights and protections that come with it.
#60,
It creates a much worse situation when the judge needs to weigh the children leaving their 10 “brothers and sisters” or their mother loosing them.
# 55 Mister Mustard said, “Do you have anything to back that up? I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers had any opinion on gay marriage, just as they had no opinion on DRM, nuclear power…”
Yes, there is no record of any of them supporting a change.
You doubt homosexuals existed back then? Really?
#54 I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court case of a gay couple married in Massachusetts and living in another state but not… …
I’m not entirely sure how far you can go down that road with the “full faith and credit” argument. The problem with marriage is that some financial benefits come with the package; for example, joint filing of income taxes. Should a state that does not recognize gay “marriage” be forced to allow joint filing by people based upon the “marriage” granted in another state?
I think the argument from the gay community is that they would like to claim the same social rights as heterosexual couples, not just enter into a legal partnership. Although they can currently be united under a civil union (in some states), they remain adamant about the TITLE of marriage. So, it appears that their struggle is for the legal recognition of their social rights to be labeled as a married couple, instead of partners (sounds too professional). In my personal opinion, gay couples should have the same social rights as everyone and should be allowed to enter into any legal partnerships, whether this be a civil union or marriage.
# 57 Phydeau said, “The majority of people were against the various civil rights laws and court judgements when they were passed.”
The laws were passed by the democratically elected representatives of the people. Are you advocating a non-democratic process for this?
If so, then I shall change the definition of murder without any legislative body agreeing.
Okay with that?
#52 Phydeau
Yes, I do think it will discourage heterosexuals from getting married.
“I am married” is a label that does a lot to describe someone. Right now (in most states), this label says you are a straight adult in a committed relationship with one person of the opposite sex.
If this label comes to mean that I am straight or maybe gay in a committed relationship with one or more people of one or more genders, who is going to want it? Saying “I am married” will tell anyone anything about you.
Every argument I have ever heard for gay marriage works equally as well for polygamy. I truly believe that widespread adoption of gay marriage will lead to legal polygamy.
I also believe that gay activists are after the label of marriage far more than the legal rights associated with it. Marriage is a big “NORMAL” stamp we wear on our foreheads. This is what the activists want.
If this was all about legal rights than gays would be fighting for civil unions and they would likely have them. Both sides are fighting over semantics.
# 54 ArianeB said, “I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court case of a gay couple married in Massachusetts and living in another state but not allowed to (insert any marriage right here).”
And I look forward to a state that legalizes polygamy and the people moving to another state and trying to go to the SCotUS to enforce…
You want a hint how that will go?
#67,
The full faith and credit clause is an interesting thing. It doesn’t apply to conncealed weapon permits, or many other things.
Bill Clinton specificly denied full faith and credit to gay marriages with his “defense of marriage act” which BHO says he will eliminate.
In Canada our Parliament passed a law and had followup vote to keep the law. It sorted out all the interprovincial problems and let us get on with our lives.
Unfortunately I don’t think the US could do that as long as the right wants to fight elections on culture wars (i.e. the Pat Buchanan school of electoral politics).
A more interesting discussion is how many gay and lesbian couples actually want to get married.
#70 – BdgBill
>>If this label comes to mean that I am straight or
>>maybe gay in a committed relationship with one or
>>more people of one or more genders, who is going to
>>want it?
Most people who want it now. I seriously doubt that most people are as concerned that people they don’t know immediately recognize their heterosexuality by virtue of them being married.
As I said, if your biggest fear is that you’re going to have to explicitly state your heterosexuality to people who don’t know you well enough to know if you’re married to a man or a woman, that’s hardly grounds for denying a significant minority of the population basic civil rights.
Hey, right now they might think you’re married to a Negress! Or an Asian! Heck, you could be married to a “mutt” like Obama (but female).
Sheesh. Could any reason be more superficial and trivial as this one?
I support gay marriage and I won’t get married until it is legal for my gay friends to marry.
As far as what the founding fathers “intended” is concerned, they intended slavery to be legal and for only white land owning men to vote so I don’t think that worrying about what the founding fathers intended is very productive.
Gay people have as much a right to be as miserable as the rest of us. Yes, if marriage isn’t already totally discredited as a social institution, then let us welcome this new social unit.
# 75 jccalhoun said, “so I don’t think that worrying about what the founding fathers intended is very productive.”
“Unfortunately” for you and your friends the majority of American’s do care. As evidenced by 30 states having made it not legal…
Marriage is a contract between two people recognized by the state.
It only has religious connection if it is preformed by a church.
Mr Mustard #74
As I said in my original post I fully support civil unions for gays (or anyone else) that carry the exact same rights as marriage
There are your “basic civil rights”. Enjoy them with my blessing. I am not for denying anyone anything except the word marriage on a certificate.
Since this is not good enough for the majority of gay activists than they are just as petty as I am.
#77 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>“Unfortunately” for you and your friends the
>>majority of American’s do care. As evidenced by 30
>>states having made it not legal…
Naw, they don’t care what the Founding Fathers thought. I doubt if most people voting to criminalize gay marriage even know who the Founding Fathers WERE.
Virtually without exception, opposition to same-sex marriage is catalyzed by the GodHatesFags mentality. dot org. Homophobia, pure and simple. Not a single one of their “arguments” to the contrary can stand the light of day. It’s nothing more than ignorant hatemongering.
# 80 Mister Mustard said, “Homophobia, pure and simple.”
I don’t know anyone who fear homo’s. Just like I don’t know anyone who fear people who are into bestiality or masochism, etc.
Don’t the lawyers have enough profitable divorces to handle all ready?! The problem is, where do we draw the line as to whom can marry whom…or, marry what?
Civil unions seem to be the way to go until some day soon science can correct this terrible genetic defect.
#79 – BdgBill
>>As I said in my original post I fully support civil
>>unions for gays (or anyone else) that carry the
>>exact same rights as marriage.
Right. “Separate but equal”. As Echeola said in #13, “how did that work out the last time?”. It took “legislating from the bench”, like Brown v. Board of Education, to overturn decades of de facto legalized discrimination allowed under the “separate but equal” finding of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Either they’re the same (in which case, call them the same thing), or they’re not.
I’m having a hard time believing that you are SO insecure in your sexuality that you really need to broadcast to semi-strangers that you are heterosexual simply by virtue of the fact that you’re married (although even that is not foolproof; look at Rock Hudson; he was married to a woman even though he was wrangling rump at every opportunity, and ended up dying from AIDS).
Gosh. Maybe we could come up with some kind of armband for you that would proclaim to the world that you ain’t one a them thar faggots.
#85, “I doubt if most people voting to criminalize gay marriage even know who the Founding Fathers WERE.”
Oh, are they putting people in jail now? This is certainly a new development.
#86 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>I don’t know anyone who fear homo’s.
Guess you don’t get out much.
And perhaps I should have said “have a strong dislike of “homo’s”, and seek to discriminate against them and deny them basic personal liberties”, rather than the “fear” implied by a phobia. Although some people actually ARE afraid of them. Fear, hatred, disliking, disgust, disdain, repulsion, whatever.
It’s what motivates most of the anti-liberty actions of the GodHatesFags mindset.
Nothing rational.
#88, Right. “Separate but equal”. As Echeola said in #13, “how did that work out the last time?”. It took “legislating from the bench”, like Brown v. Board of Education, to overturn decades of de facto legalized discrimination allowed under the “separate but equal” finding of Plessy v. Ferguson.
A difference in terminology only is hardly the same as forcing people to go to different school locations. You fail at making valid comparisons.
Hey, what’s the problem?
This should be a non issue. What’s the fear about gay marriage? Are you guys so uncomfortable with yourselves that anybody who differs from you needs to be stomped out?
“Sanctity of marriage”? Really, what exactly does that mean?
Get over it. Move on. Please.
#80 – SeaLawyer
>>Oh, are they putting people in jail now? This is
>>certainly a new development.
I don’t know if they’re putting them in jail (yet), but if something is illegal, it’s a crime. So gay couples who attempt to marry are criminals. And eventually, criminals often go to jail.
# 90 Mister Mustard said, “And perhaps I should have said “have a strong dislike of “homo’s”, and seek to discriminate against them and deny them basic personal liberties”,”
Umm, no. Marriage isn’t a personal liberty. It is regulated. You require a license from the state. Contrast that with Free Speech (a real personal liberty) no license required.
I think you don’t understand what “rights” are.