Prop 8, tyranny of the majority?

[biosc1]

This time it might get him fired, so no one has to see him on the TV anymore?

...but...but...he apologized! He didn't mean it...he said it was just jokes!

[Zero]

O M F G, the 30 Rock season opener is going to be fucking hilarious.

[muddi900]

Morgan has now issued a response, confirming he did make these remarks: "I want to apologize to my fans and the gay and lesbian community for my choice of words at my recent stand-up act in Nashville. I’m not a hateful person and don’t condone any kind of violence against others. While I am an equal opportunity jokester, and my friends know what is in my heart, even in a comedy club this clearly went too far and was not funny in any context.”

http://glaadblog.org/2011/06/10/update-tracy-morgan-has-apologized/


Your "choice of words", tracy?

Yeah, 30 rock season opener will be awesome!

[MagGnome]

This time it might get him fired, so no one has to see him on the TV anymore?

Let's hope so. What a despicable, disgusting prick!

[National Kato]

One vote shy (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/second-ny-republican-says-hell-back-gay-marriage-bill.php?ref=fpb) of the 32 needed. C'mon, New York!

-eohHwsplvY

[MagGnome]

*crosses fingers*

[Ink Asylum]

Keep your fingers crossed. Today could be the day that gay marriage becomes legal in NY. It all hangs on one vote.

[MagGnome]

http://www.somethingofthatilk.com/comics/223.jpg (http://www.somethingofthatilk.com/index.php?id=223)

[Ink Asylum]

They left out the part where the homosexual goes around forcing married people to divorce and breaking up their families.

[MagGnome]

I know that I personally enjoy seducing straight men and hearing the lamentations of their women.

[Bone]

Would that make you a militantly gay Conan the Barbarian?

[biosc1]

They left out the part where the homosexual goes around forcing married people to divorce and breaking up their families.

I was wondering who that well dressed man who knocked on my door was...thank God I didn't answer!

[MagGnome]

One more, via Facebook:

http://flexapic.com/g.ashx?id=7155

[Ox]

I get the logic, but it seems a little odd to compare gay marriage to various straight people who treat the sacrament of marriage poorly. Presumably gay people hope to do a better job of being married than those people, and I imagine those who oppose gay marriage don't think favorably of Charlie Sheen et al. either. All that does is remind people that marriage is "under assault" from a variety of directions.

[ShivaX]

One more, via Facebook:

http://flexapic.com/g.ashx?id=7155

o-id4GKsaQk

Esp at 4:00 or so.

[MagGnome]

I love Lewis Black. Thanks for sharing!

[evilgoodwin]

http://flexapic.com/g.ashx?id=7159

[Hotcod]

I get the logic, but it seems a little odd to compare gay marriage to various straight people who treat the sacrament of marriage poorly. Presumably gay people hope to do a better job of being married than those people, and I imagine those who oppose gay marriage don't think favorably of Charlie Sheen et al. either. All that does is remind people that marriage is "under assault" from a variety of directions.

I think it's simply that while marriage is "under assault from a variety of directions" they are not actively trying to repeal divorce laws or imposes laws on how people act when they are married to help it... simply to stop gay people even having the right to be involved in it. There's only really one good explanation for that and that is simply that they are homophobic. The thought of "those people" being married is, by their actions, the main thing they are worried about else they wouldn't be spending so much time on it and more time with out issues attack marriage. There actions are not wide ranging enough across all these issues to do with marriage to be able to use that as a defence for the current actions they are taking.

Unless the first and only issue they are attacking just happens to be the only one that does not also deal with straight people. Which is funny 'cus the only people who currently can actively attack marriage from with in the institution' are straight people. If they are not homophobic then logic states that no matter who you let get married it's what they do with that marriage that is the issue and as such it's those issues, not the right of gay people to marry, that should be the first battle ground.

[Zero]

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr213/egomez2814/d1210b35.jpg

[Ox]

I think it's simply that while marriage is "under assault from a variety of directions" they are not actively trying to repeal divorce laws or imposes laws on how people act when they are married to help it...
They did. Divorce used to be practically impossible for most couples, and things like adultery were criminalized. It was a big debate for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. Those political battles, however, were lost before you were born. The likelihood of repealing those reforms now is essentially zilch. Or does it qualify as homophobic to declare, "We probably can't repeal divorce liberalization and recriminalize adultery, but we might be able to stop gay marriage, so let's focus our efforts on the area where it might do some 'good'"?

[Hotcod]

In this case, pretty much, yes. If those laws which fundamentally undermine the religious and conservative idea of marriage got past and are now seen as things they can not repeal what is the difference in the argument against them and the argument against gay marriage? There has to be something they see as fundamentally different about gay marriage that can let them make an argument that has not already been clearly defeated.

You can talk about marriage being about procreation but do they want to make it illegal for couples who can't or don't want to have kids to get married? no. What else is there? that a child must be raised by a mother and farther? well then widowers clearly must be forced to remarry or put the child up for adoption ext ext

We can go on and on like that, anything not covered in already defeated arguments can be applied to straight people and so dismissed as an argument against gay marriage.... unless you see being gay simply as being wrong. In other words the only logical reason to focus on preventing gay marriage then is homophobia.

When you get right down to it that is simply what this is, they see gays as wrong and so they see gay marriage as something they can argue to stop. That in it's own twisted way is perfectly valid logic but trying to dress it up as anything other than that is either self delusion or the realisation that they will not get there way if they are honest about why they want it.

[VerseD]

Or does it qualify as homophobic to declare, "We probably can't repeal divorce liberalization and recriminalize adultery, but we might be able to stop gay marriage, so let's focus our efforts on the area where it might do some 'good'"?

I don't know, did it qualify as racist to say, "We probably cannot reinstate slavery, but we might be able to stop desegregation"? Clinging by the fingernails to a status quo does not exclude a person from accusations of bigotry.

[MagGnome]

Well said, VerseD.

[aVaKus]

Well said, VerseD.

Ditto to Cod.

[Ox]

So if one opposes heterosexual adultery, then one is homophobic? Interesting logic.

[Hawkzombie]

So if one opposes heterosexual adultery, then one is homophobic? Interesting logic.

So...if I cheat, I'm doing my part to support gay marriage?

FUCK YES.

[Hotcod]

So if one opposes heterosexual adultery, then one is homophobic? Interesting logic.

Given that you, with all due respect, pulled that out your ass.... I'd hope so :)

[VerseD]

So if one opposes heterosexual adultery, then one is homophobic? Interesting logic.

What a daring leap! But I have never heard of someone who supports the criminalization of adultery and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Certain things, like slavery and racism, go hand-in-hand.

[Matthias]

What a daring leap! But I have never heard of someone who supports the criminalization of adultery and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Certain things, like slavery and racism, go hand-in-hand.

Ooh ooh! Pick me! I'm one of those people you've never heard of!

[Bone]

Really, you support criminalizing adultery? I'd like to hear why.

[Blue]

Really, you support criminalizing adultery? I'd like to hear why.

Well, it would help weed out the douchebags.

[Matthias]

Really, you support criminalizing adultery? I'd like to hear why.

If you're going to make marriage a legal institution with benefits bestowed, there should be legal repercussions to basically breaking the contract--whether the state puts it this way or not, you're making a contract with the government as much as with your spouse. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the benefits bestowed on married couples have the intent of supporting a couple/family and allowing partners to support each other; cheating on your spouse undermines all of that and often leads to dissolution of the marriage. I'm not saying it deserves jail time, but there needs to be something more than "well, your spouse has a better chance of getting a favorable deal in divorce court".

[Bone]

Adultery sucks a big one, but I don't agree that it should carry punishment. As you said, it often ends marriages- but not always. How would you enforce it? Would you consider two people eating dinner together cheating (to some, cheating can be purely emotional, without sex- or it could be a completely harmless dinner). Some people have open relationships, or they swing as a couple- would they be arrested for pursuing deviations from traditional marriage?

I believe in leaving it up to the consenting adults in a marriage to work out whether their contract is broken immeasurably or if it can be salvaged.

[MagGnome]

I'm with Bone 100%. Keep the moral police out of our personal lives.

[Matthias]

I suppose my view is a roundabout way of saying that it's ridiculous that the government has anything to do with marriage as an institution.

[Ink Asylum]

It looks like gay marriage will be coming up for a vote tonight in NY. I'm trying not to get too optimistic.

[Ink Asylum]

Sadly, one of the pivotal Republicans people had been hoping would be the crucial 32nd yea has announced in advance that he will be voting no.

Andrew Lanza of Staten Island:

After exhaustive consideration of the issue of same-sex marriage I have decided to vote no. Our government can and should confer all the rights & benefits associated w/ marriage to same-sex couples while reserving the word marriage to describe a union between a man and a woman. Calling a union between a man and a woman a marriage, and one between a man and a man a civil union, does not invalidate one or the other.

This doesn't mean it's definitely going to fail, but it makes it much harder to pass. If this goes down by one vote...fuck...

[biosc1]

Man, that is just one scared politician who just gave a real waffle of a response.

[Ink Asylum]

If this vote fails tonight I'll definitely work to see his ass tossed out of his seat at the earliest possible election.

[MagGnome]

I've got my fingers crossed, but I'm almost too scared to look at the final results. :/

Also, screw that coward. Full Marriage Equality is the only right choice.

[Ink Asylum]

Another report, more positive this time, even after Lanza's statement:

Mike Long, the chairman of the New York Conservative Party and a leading opponent of the bill to institue same sex marriage in New York, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the bill will likely pass "by the end of the night." ... "I know they've got the 32nd vote, and I think they've muscled two more people" to give the vote some cushion.

I dearly hope this is true. I want to call my brother tonight and have happy news.

[MagGnome]

Is your brother gay?

[Ink Asylum]

Yes. And he's been with the same man for over a decade, much longer than I've been able to maintain a relationship. They deserve to be married much more than many straight couples.

[Blue]

I really hope this passes. Hopefully it'll get other states moving in the right direction.

[MagGnome]

Where does your brother live, Ink? Best wishes to him and his boyfriend/partner! Hopefully they can wed soon if they so desire. :)

I doubt that I will ever get married, but I want to live in a country where I have the freedom to do so. Hopefully the ban in Minnesota will fail, and we will get our horrible DOMA law reversed as well (on both the state and federal level).

[aVaKus]

NY Final Vote!

Yes: 33
No: 29

Bill is passed!

[MagGnome]

Hooray! One step closer to full equality. :)

So when are we moving to Brooklyn and getting married, Avakus? :p

[Ink Asylum]

My brother lives in NY with me so this is very important for us.

Also:

Woooooooooo!

Here's hoping everyone in the country will share this freedom soon, and everyone in the world soon after.

[Ink Asylum]

Pictures of celebration outside the Stonewall tonight. (http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/new-york-passes-gay-marriage-bill)

[MagGnome]

My brother lives in NY with me so this is very important for us.

Also:

Woooooooooo!

Here's hoping everyone in the country will share this freedom soon, and everyone in the world soon after.

Yay!! I really hope that soon gay people have full equality around the country and the whole world. :)

[digitalErich]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/ImhTK.jpg

[MagGnome]

I saw that earlier. Very cool. :)

[Ink Asylum]

FYI, since that photo is exploding across the web, the ESB has been lit with a rainbow all week for Pride Week. The timing just makes it even more special.

2011's Pride March is going to happen on Sunday. I may have to head down to witness the celebration. Going to be a lot of joy that day.

[National Kato]

Well done, New York. Always a shining example of what America is made of.

[OUX]

Well done, New York. Always a shining example of what America is made of.

You mean outlawing transfat, cracking down on hookers and boating off their homeless?

[digitalErich]

FYI, since that photo is exploding across the web, the ESB has been lit with a rainbow all week for Pride Week. The timing just makes it even more special.

2011's Pride March is going to happen on Sunday. I may have to head down to witness the celebration. Going to be a lot of joy that day.
The story gets even better/weirder...apparently several of the colors that make the rainbow possible were installed months back for a tribute to Gerry Garcia.

[ShivaX]

Well done, New York. Always a shining example of what America is made of.

I dunno about THAT, but I'll agree with the first part. :)

[Shieldmaiden]

That's amazing news!

[National Kato]

I was referring more to the diversity of cultures and peoples. No one's perfect, but New York City has always been a great example of the 'Melting Pot.'

[wyeast]

So when are we moving to Brooklyn and getting married, Avakus? :p
I think I read somewhere that NY doesn't have a residency requirement for a marriage license. :D

[MagGnome]

I think I read somewhere that NY doesn't have a residency requirement for a marriage license. :D

Being legally married wouldn't mean a whole lot if I moved back to a state like Minnesota. Once a shining beacon of progressive politics, we've been overrun by conservative nutjobs and blowhards from the suburbs and rural areas. Boo!

No, I'm not bitter at all. :p

[pomeroy]

Well done, New York. Always a shining example of what America is made of.

Right after Iowa and Maine, of course. :D

[burger]

Being legally married wouldn't mean a whole lot if I moved back to a state like Minnesota. Once a shining beacon of progressive politics, we've been overrun by conservative nutjobs and blowhards from the suburbs and rural areas. Boo!

No, I'm not bitter at all. :p

The truth of the matter is that in many states it's the democrat minorities who are overwhelmingly against gay marriage (here's looking at you California) but I understand its easier to just blame conservatives.

What's Obama's stance on gay marriage again?

[Zecon]

The truth of the matter is that in many states it's the democrat minorities who are overwhelmingly against gay marriage (here's looking at you California) but I understand its easier to just blame conservatives.

What's Obama's stance on gay marriage again?
Obama? really?
damn you all love beating on him like a drum.
he hasnt done anything to impede it and im glad he has left it to the states to handle for themselves and focused on things that he can do something about like DADT.
dont worry all, im sure once Romney gets into office, he will solve this homosexual problem by giving everyone more wives. ;-)

[National Kato]

The truth of the matter is that in many states it's the democrat minorities who are overwhelmingly against gay marriage (here's looking at you California) but I understand its easier to just blame conservatives.

That's adorable.

If conservatives embraced equal rights for all and accepted gay marriage none of this would be an issue. To act like it's liberals who are holding back equality for all is naive, and at the least willfully ignorant.

Obama has taken a very hands-off approach: stop defending DOMA with the DOJ and leave the legalization of same-sex marriage to the states. You'd think conservatives would support that given their hard-on for states rights, until you remember that conservatives are willing to throw all else under the bus in order to combat Obama on any issue.

[burger]

To act like it's liberals who are holding back equality for all is naive, and at the least willfully ignorant..

Not all dems are liberals...talk about ignorant.

damn you all love beating on him like a drum

You clearly have me confused for another member...I've said peep about Obama in the time I've posted here.

[National Kato]

Not all dems are liberals...talk about ignorant.


You own statement was intended to push blame away from conservatives. That's why you used the word. As if they weren't the ones primarily fighting against same-sex marriage.

[Bone]

His comment about who is voting against gay marriage in California was pretty accurate though, from what I understand. Hispanic communities often vote Democrat but are very religiously conservative. Particularly in matters of abortion, divorce, and gay marriage, their votes resemble Republicans- but they are otherwise Democrats.

[MagGnome]

A lot of black people voted against gay marriage as well. It's sad.

[National Kato]

I know there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. It's the conservatives who are mainly against same-sex marriage, from within either party. burger said it's easier to blame 'conservatives.' It is, because that's where the resistance is.

burger's issue seems to be assuming that when someone says 'liberal' or 'conservative' they are referring to a specific political party choice. I can't speak for what Mags' intent was in his original comment that set burger off, but I took his usage of 'progressive' and 'conservative' to mean more than just a (D) or (R).

[Ink Asylum]

You can also specify social conservatives and economic conservatives. Many of the minority votes against same sex marriage come from older, church-going minorities, who tend to be socially conservative.

[MagGnome]

I know there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. It's the conservatives who are mainly against same-sex marriage, from within either party. burger said it's easier to blame 'conservatives.' It is, because that's where the resistance is.

burger's issue seems to be assuming that when someone says 'liberal' or 'conservative' they are referring to a specific political party choice. I can't speak for what Mags' intent was in his original comment that set burger off, but I took his usage of 'progressive' and 'conservative' to mean more than just a (D) or (R).

That's exactly what I meant, and I thought it would be rather obvious. If I was referring to Republicans and Democrats, I would have said such!

Some Republicans opposed the ban on gay marriage in Minnesota, and a few Dems favored it. I have a real problem with social conservatives. I don't care which party they affiliate with.

[MagGnome]

Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false). It will now move on to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. One step closer to victory!

[National Kato]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules Prop 8 is unconstitutional! (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/ninth_circuit_rules_prop_8_is_unconstitutional.php ?ref=fpa)

Written as part of the ruling: the law “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Now it's up to the Supreme Court or the supporters can petition for a rehearing en banc.

SCOTUS blog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/ban-on-gay-marriage-struck-down/) on ruling.

[MagGnome]

Hooray! Victory tastes sweet, even if the war isn't over yet.

I'm hopeful that the anti-gay marriage amendment will fail in Minnesota this November, although the polls have shown that opinion is split pretty close among the public. The religious nutters are already gearing up their campaign of hate and misinformation. Such a joyous thing to behold.

Hopefully Prop 8 is defeated once and for all in the Supreme Court, although I have my doubts since the court is fairly conservative these days.

[OldJadedGamer]

Marriage should be a religious ceremony only, and anything that involves actual legal bullshit between two people should just be a civil union. Gay or straight. All current marriage is right now is a binding legal contract between two people. Making it a religious ceremony only and removing all legality from it would shut up all the religious nuts and make it equal for everyone.

Marriage in it's current state is just a sham.

[bean]

@OldJadedGamer - Unless you make an amendment to the Constitution that states that all legal marriages are now to be referred to as civil unions and receive the same rights and privileges, then "civil unions" become a "separate but equal" policy where the married have rights and privileges not granted to those in civil unions.

Plus, there are people "married" in all kinds of religions that are not yours every day. Muslims have beliefs about the treatment of women that I find repugnant and I bet you would too if you knew them. Some Mormons believe in polygamy and in child brides being assigned elderly husbands by the priesthood. Many religions don't even recognize a god that is anything like the Christian God (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.). Other people enter into non-religious secular marriage for the legal benefits. Plus, there are even weird cults like Satanists who have their marriages recognized as legal. . . so long as they are between a man and a woman.

So when people say they want the word marriage to reflect the religious meaning of their beliefs and not it's legal meaning, they are being naive. It already does not reflect the religious meaning of your beliefs unless you are a Unitarian who honestly embraces all beliefs. . . in which case, you should also be open to allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights and privileges granted through marriage.

[OldJadedGamer]

@OldJadedGamer - Unless you make an amendment to the Constitution that states that all legal marriages are now to be referred to as civil unions and receive the same rights and privileges

That's all you needed to write. I want to take the religion out of it... regardless what what religion it is and make it what it really is. A legal binding contract between two adults. Gay or straight, doesn't matter.

Then they can pass a million laws that state a marriage is between a man and a woman and it won't matter, gays and straights can be recognized by the state. All my gay friends want the rights of a marriage but few of them care about the "marriage" itself. The weapon the bigots always use and their number one defense is that it's against religion but when you remove that, you remove their only last straw they are holding onto.

But I'm biased as I think marriage in general is all bullshit. My pony in this race is just making sure we have equal rights.

[Ox]

OJG, marriage is not a legal binding contract between two people, either. Your image of the current legal status of marriage is a fantasy. If you think it ought to be a contract, feel free to argue why.

[boratika]

Marriage should be a religious ceremony only, and anything that involves actual legal bullshit between two people should just be a civil union. Gay or straight. All current marriage is right now is a binding legal contract between two people. Making it a religious ceremony only and removing all legality from it would shut up all the religious nuts and make it equal for everyone.

As a non religious person, I would like for you and the Council of Trent and just religion in general to stay out of my marriage.

Other people enter into non-religious secular marriage for the legal benefits.

Also, sometimes love and commitment and junk.

[Matthias]

:s/religious/informal
:s/legally binding contract/legally recognized union

I think OJG's point is simply that the state should take action to completely decouple any legal benefits currently given to married couples into its own, universally (or at least more widely applied) legal concept, and let individuals and their respective churches/ship captains decide whether they want to go through a marriage ceremony of their choosing, or simply fill out the Civil Union paperwork.

I'd be okay with that. I'm dubious to the idea that pre-existing marriages need to be converted through some sort of constitutional amendment--I don't think it would be hard to grandfather them in; new marriages are completely discontinued in favor of a generic union.

Didn't Spain "outlaw" marriage a few years back, in favor of such as system? I wonder how well that's working out.

[Banacek]

Ox gets OJG's point. He just disagrees with it so he wants to argue semantics. I mean, it is his livelihood :)

[Matthias]

Ox gets OJG's point. He just disagrees with it so he wants to argue semantics. I mean, it is his livelihood :)

Oh I'm aware. Of course, I'm a C++ developer, and it's debatable whether a courthouse or compiler is bitchier about semantics :)

[muddi900]

If it looks like a quack...

[Ox]

Ox gets OJG's point. He just disagrees with it so he wants to argue semantics. I mean, it is his livelihood :)
1. You don't really have the slightest clue what I do for a living.

2. I don't necessarily disagree with OJG's goals. But the idea of marriage being a binding contract is pretty obviously stupid. First, if my wife breaks her marriage vows, what happens? Absolutely nothing. I can get a divorce, but (a) that doesn't require either of us to violate our vows and (b) the division of money, kids, etc. will have basically nothing to do with who was in the "wrong" or who violated the vows. Plus, I can dissolve the marriage even if my wife doesn't want to. Marriage law has virtually nothing in common with contract law, as even the most ignorant layperson would know with a scant moment's reflection. I suppose you can call my insistence on keeping this concept clear "semantics," although at that point I'm pretty sure all factual corrections are "semantics."

As for Mattias's point, states decoupled the legal act of marriage from religious ceremonies quite a long time ago. But states cannot abolish "marriage" in the way you suggest, as I've pointed out several times: the same court cases that are used to support SSM also say that the Constitution protects a right to enter into a marriage that is recognized by law. Abolishing civil marriage would simply mean that everyone's rights were violated.

[Banacek]

1. You don't really have the slightest clue what I do for a living.

Well, going by how you treat people who disagree with you on here and talk down to them, I'd wager a guess that you're a professional cunt. I'm pretty sure I'm right on the money too.

[Matthias]

Ox, My handle is not Mattias. Your image of the spelling of my name is a fantasy. If you think it ought to be Mattias, feel free to argue why.

Just messing with you :). But even the most ignorant layperson would have noticed that typo with a scant moment's review.

But seriously, I'm just messing.

As for the actual point at hand: I'm curious to hear what it would take to "convert", if you will, marriage as seen by the law to something with the same rights but with less religious connotations (we can just stick with the term "civil union" if no one objects). Would it take a full-on constitutional amendment? To be honest, it seems like a simple word change to me, with no actual change, abridgment, or violation of rights. Any two people would have the right to enter a legally recognized union, and any two people would have the right to pursue a completely separate ceremony or rite with the church (be it at the local, national, or international level) of their choosing in order to gain whatever status they deem appropriate; any minister would have the ability to refuse to perform said ceremony.

Also, I apologize if answering this post requires you to repeat things you have already pointed out several times. I admit that I'm not very likely to scan back through the three years of this thread, but I think I'm not the only one who could benefit a refresher.

[bean]

Also, sometimes love and commitment and junk.
lol. Yeah, I wasn't doing secular marriage any favors there.

[bean]

Abolishing civil marriage would simply mean that everyone's rights were violated.
Interestingly, if gay people actually had this dubious and self-defeating goal in mind, the conservative rhetoric about "protecting marriage" would be true.

[bean]

As for the actual point at hand: I'm curious to hear what it would take to "convert", if you will, marriage as seen by the law to something with the same rights but with less religious connotations (we can just stick with the term "civil union" if no one objects).

Did you read my point before? How can you argue for such a silly separation of language when legal marriage already does not reflect any single religion within the United States? Do you think a 12 y/o girl being married to a 57 y/o man at the behest of a strange Mormon sect's priesthood is a reflection of your religious beliefs too? How about Buddhists who do not believe in the Christian god at all? Do you think that secular people who marry for love and legal benefits but have no belief in religion somehow besmirch the "sacred use" of the word marriage?

Also, there are religious gay people who want to get religiously married and have that religious/legal status be recognized.

Would it take a full-on constitutional amendment? To be honest, it seems like a simple word change to me, with no actual change, abridgment, or violation of rights.
It would be a word change at each level of government in every law that now effects married couples. It would be a word change in all insurance policies with old policies possibly grandfathered in. It would be a change in many legal contracts that would need to specify that "spouse" includes also civil unions. The only way to avoid this would be a Constitutional amendment that said that "civil unions" should be granted all the rights and privileges as married couples. There would still be lawsuits, but they'd be won easily.

[MagGnome]

As for the actual point at hand: I'm curious to hear what it would take to "convert", if you will, marriage as seen by the law to something with the same rights but with less religious connotations (we can just stick with the term "civil union" if no one objects).

You're asking this under the assumption that marriage is a religious institution, which it is not. Marriage can be religious, but it is not inherently so. There are already thousands (maybe millions) of people who get married in a completely non-religious fashion each year. Yet somehow the religious right isn't out there trying to take away their rights. Saying that marriage is a "religious institution" is simply a way for them to try to hide their bigotry against gays and lesbians. I could find another (female) atheist and get married at Chuck E Cheese if I wanted to.

[Ox]

Well, going by how you treat people who disagree with you on here and talk down to them, I'd wager a guess that you're a professional cunt. I'm pretty sure I'm right on the money too.
Let me get this straight: your best response to me is to call me profane names, and you think I don't speak to you respectfully enough?

As for the actual point at hand: I'm curious to hear what it would take to "convert", if you will, marriage as seen by the law to something with the same rights but with less religious connotations (we can just stick with the term "civil union" if no one objects). Would it take a full-on constitutional amendment? To be honest, it seems like a simple word change to me, with no actual change, abridgment, or violation of rights.
I get that you're just asking for a word change. But the weird thing is, courts have said that this word is a constitutional entitlement. Sure, denying gay couples the right to get married to each other may (or may not) be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause; but the right to enter into a "marriage" is also part of the "right to privacy" that courts have found implicitly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, et al. It falls into the same category of implicitly protected rights that abortion does. See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).

Does a state violate this right by reclassifying such unions as "civil unions"? Even assuming there's no Equal Protection issue, quite likely. The California Supreme Court noted that this argument was at issue but declined to address it because California had not abolished the term "marriage." When the Massachusetts Supreme Court considered the issue under the state constitution's Due Process clause, it seemed to find that gay people are entitled to the word "marriage" in a separate section from when it described why discriminating against them was impermissible. It's not totally 100% clear yet, but there's increasing evidence to suggest that a state which tried to stop using the word "marriage" for any union would find itself blocked by the courts. Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the word "marriage."
How can you argue for such a silly separation of language when legal marriage already does not reflect any single religion within the United States? Do you think a 12 y/o girl being married to a 57 y/o man at the behest of a strange Mormon sect's priesthood is a reflection of your religious beliefs too?
You are really obsessed with certain tiny fundamentalist sects for some reason. In any event, the scenario you outline would be illegal anyway: one cannot get married in Utah (the place I assume you imagine this scenario occurring) until 15, and if you're getting married that young you also need a judge's approval (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_01_000900.htm). The "marriages" you describe are not legal marriages, so I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.

[bean]

You are really obsessed with certain tiny fundamentalist sects for some reason.
Not obsessed. My point is that these "religious" marriages are repugnant to us while also being legal. You were right to correct me in that this extreme example is a religious marriage but is not legal.

However, my other examples of legal marriages that are not a reflection of the Christian right's religion still support my point that religion is already irrelevent legally in regards to marriage becuase we are a country that supports freedom of religion.

[biosc1]

On a side note, I am attending my wife's cousin's marriage to his partner this weekend.

All legal. All normal.

I still don't get what the fuss is aboot ;)

[Ox]

Fair enough, bean. I'm not sure you're correct about the "Christian right," though. I've been called enough names here that I presume I am a member of that group, but my church does not necessarily view all non-Catholic marriages as invalid. For example, it would be difficult for me to marry a divorcee even if her previous marriage had been conducted under Buddhist rites. Buddhist marriage is obviously not the same as the Catholic sacrament of holy matrimony, but neither is she deemed unwed (absent an annulment).

[muddi900]

...sounds like a quack...

[MagGnome]

On a side note, I am attending my wife's cousin's marriage to his partner this weekend.

All legal. All normal.

I still don't get what the fuss is aboot ;)

You and your wife better get your divorce papers ready!

[biosc1]

You and your wife better get your divorce papers ready!

Why bother...when gays marry, it devalues my marriage so much that it is almost like it never existed in the first place! :mad:

[muddi900]

I have a solution for Marriage Devaluation; extremely extravagant pre-nups.

[National Kato]

Some comments from the floor during the Washington state gay marriage legislation debate this week:

CbmbdWK6338

The bill passed (http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/newspaper/news/sc-nw-washington-gay-0209-20120209,0,4827764.story) and is expected to be signed into law early next week. Washington will be the seventh state to recognize same-sex marriage.

[MagGnome]

She was incredible, simply incredible. Bravo!

Kudos to everyone in Washington State who voted to pass this wonderful legislation. The march toward full equality continues. :)

[Vanthar]

She was incredible, simply incredible. Bravo!

Kudos to everyone in Washington State who voted to pass this wonderful legislation. The march toward full equality continues. :)

I thought I read this bill was actually very likely to face a referendum? It only needed like 120k signatures. Still progress, but it will be interesting to see how it holds up in November.

[biosc1]

I thought I read this bill was actually very likely to face a referendum? It only needed like 120k signatures. Still progress, but it will be interesting to see how it holds up in November.

Washington is a pretty liberal state. It should be pretty safe.

[J Arcane]

Washington is a pretty liberal state. It should be pretty safe.
That's what I thought about Oregon.

Never forget the silent majority in the western states.

[MagGnome]

Washington is actually pretty conservative outside of the Seattle area. They are hamstrung by all of the rural and suburban areas. The same thing happens here in Minnesota. The right-wing crazies like Bachmann come from the suburbs and rural areas, whereas the city elects Al Franken and Keith Ellison.

[bean]

Washington is actually pretty conservative outside of the Seattle area. They are hamstrung by all of the rural and suburban areas. The same thing happens here in Minnesota. The right-wing crazies like Bachmann come from the suburbs and rural areas, whereas the city elects Al Franken and Keith Ellison.

I think that's true in most places, though to be honest, in Texas, Austin is the only city that votes anything but Republican.

[MagGnome]

Yes, it applies to most states, unfortunately. Minneapolis is just about the only liberal part of Minnesota, although Duluth goes back and forth. Even Saint Paul is more conservative.

[Serapth]

Did you see the first married couple in California filled for divorce.....


Just seems kinda funny.

[National Kato]

I think it's a perfect example of how the fears of same-sex marriages were completely unfounded: it's exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, just as gay people are exactly the same as straight people. Relationships fail, no matter who you are.

[Ox]

Not just funny: incontrovertible evidence of a divorce that was directly caused by gay marriage.

The apocalypse has begun.

[muddi900]

I think it's a perfect example of how the fears of same-sex marriages were completely unfounded: it's exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, just as gay people are exactly the same as straight people. Relationships fail, no matter who you are.

It's proof that 'same sex' marraiges do not work.


Get it?

I mean monogamy

[muddi900]

Apparently google has an awesome doodle pertaining to this. I cant see, even through a proxy because it's a video.

[MagGnome]

They have a Valentine's Day doodle up today, and towards the end they show two men in tuxes.

[Ink Asylum]

Cue right-wing freak-out in 3...2...1...

[MagGnome]

Ha, I'm sure it's happening somewhere already.

OH NOES, GOOGLE SUPPORTS TEH HOMOS!!!11

Someone alert Maggie Gallagher. ;)

[biosc1]

Well, they are based in San Francisco...

[Hemalin]

The play based on the Prop 8 case aired several days ago and is up on youtube with some excellent performances from Kevin Bacon, George Clooney, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, John C. Reilly, and Brad Pitt.

Skip to 30 min for when the actual play starts.
qlUG8F9uVgM