quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinkbound

Nevertheless, I wonder how many people marry as a proclamation of love and commitment, as opposed to tax advantages, health insurance advantages, or other perceived advantages.   

Nothing wrong with that either...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

~FR~ I admit I am beyond caring, but... I continue to fail to see why the word marriage is so important to the GLBT.
It would be ever so much easier to just make legalized domestic partnerships or civil unions equal under the law as to rights, responsibilities and consequences, than to continue to fight for the right to "marry".  And I hold that to be any couple, same sex or hetero.  If you are not getting married in a church under the traditional word and intent of "marriage" which includes a divine covenant, then the heteros who choose to go to city hall or use a civil judge are also in this domestic partnership or civil union.  Same rights and protections, different name.  God has nothing to do with civil unions.  However, S/He does have everything to do with the original intent of the covenant of "marriage". 
I will not believe that this is important because it indicates that society accepts that same sex partners can have a loving and caring commitment.  I know gay couples who are way more loving and committed than more than a few married hetero couples I also know.   
That way you shut up the fundamentalists who claim it is against "God's Law", and you still afford the ability to make the choice to enter into an equal situation with a different name.   
I am sure I am continuing to miss something here.  Or is it just that we must have all the freaking drama, instead of looking for a simple and practical (earthly/civil) way to resolve this?
*Dons flame retardent suit*

quote:

Why so late?
They're behind a few other states.
Now, if they can get their act together about enforcing people's 2nd amendment rights in that state maybe...

quote:

and yet again, the courts have rejected the decision of the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

~FR~ I admit I am beyond caring, but... I continue to fail to see why the word marriage is so important to the GLBT.
It would be ever so much easier to just make legalized domestic partnerships or civil unions equal under the law as to rights, responsibilities and consequences, than to continue to fight for the right to "marry".  And I hold that to be any couple, same sex or hetero.  If you are not getting married in a church under the traditional word and intent of "marriage" which includes a divine covenant, then the heteros who choose to go to city hall or use a civil judge are also in this domestic partnership or civil union.  Same rights and protections, different name.  God has nothing to do with civil unions.  However, S/He does have everything to do with the original intent of the covenant of "marriage". 
I will not believe that this is important because it indicates that society accepts that same sex partners can have a loving and caring commitment.  I know gay couples who are way more loving and committed than more than a few married hetero couples I also know.   
That way you shut up the fundamentalists who claim it is against "God's Law", and you still afford the ability to make the choice to enter into an equal situation with a different name.   
I am sure I am continuing to miss something here.  Or is it just that we must have all the freaking drama, instead of looking for a simple and practical (earthly/civil) way to resolve this?
*Dons flame retardent suit*

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

~FR~ I admit I am beyond caring, but... I continue to fail to see why the word marriage is so important to the GLBT.
It would be ever so much easier to just make legalized domestic partnerships or civil unions equal under the law as to rights, responsibilities and consequences, than to continue to fight for the right to "marry".  And I hold that to be any couple, same sex or hetero.  If you are not getting married in a church under the traditional word and intent of "marriage" which includes a divine covenant, then the heteros who choose to go to city hall or use a civil judge are also in this domestic partnership or civil union.  Same rights and protections, different name.  God has nothing to do with civil unions.  However, S/He does have everything to do with the original intent of the covenant of "marriage". 
I will not believe that this is important because it indicates that society accepts that same sex partners can have a loving and caring commitment.  I know gay couples who are way more loving and committed than more than a few married hetero couples I also know.   
That way you shut up the fundamentalists who claim it is against "God's Law", and you still afford the ability to make the choice to enter into an equal situation with a different name.   
I am sure I am continuing to miss something here.  Or is it just that we must have all the freaking drama, instead of looking for a simple and practical (earthly/civil) way to resolve this?
*Dons flame retardent suit*

Civil Unions and marriage. Seperate but equal. Why does that ring a bell?

Brown v Board of Ed, equal protection under the law and all that civil rights stuff that so many have bled and died for and the reason I found this nation to be worth putting my life between it, and you, and those who wish it harm.

It's long past time that all of us get to live fully free and equal.

quote:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ellen DeGeneres is putting the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage into action — she and Portia de Rossi plan to wed, DeGeneres announced during a taping of her talk show.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

The problem here seems to be this idea of what "God" allows and permits and does not.

The problems with that are
a) there is (as I understand it) a requirement for no laws which recognise religion in the Constitution
b) one man's God is another man's Satan (and thats just within Christianity)
c) not everyone is Christian
d) there is no proof either way that God exists or does not, and no proof of God's intervention either way or not in any way

Such that its perfectly acceptable to believe in one God, many Gods or no God, and if one believes in one God then it need not be the Christian God by whichever interpretation.

This makes the whole idea of forbidding or enabling marriage on account of "God", by legal means, a complete nonsense.

Its also worth remembering that the enslavement of black people was justified for a long time by recourse to the same sort of nonsense.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
Somehow I knew this was going to come up. 
This not a matter of "separate but equal".  This is a matter of going around the religious aspects of the word and simply creating the opportunity for civil unions that bestow all the same rights and protections, as well as the responsibilities and consequences of the traditionally married couple.  Same tax benefits, same rights to speak for a partner in medical emergencies, same right to adopt, yada, yada, yada.  I also stated quite clearly that I think it should be called a civil union or something similar if a hetero couple chooses to be married in a civil cermony rather than a religious one.  *shrug*
"Marriage" licenses, since that is a civil matter, could be renamed to remove the word marriage completely.  Marriages, if that is what the couple chooses, happen in a church involving God and "til death do we part" as opposed to in a garden and "as long as we both shall love". 
Get your legal requirements out of the way, and then have the appropriate ceremony.  Who really cares! 
My opinion only, but removing the word marriage from this fight would take the wind out of the sails of the main objection.  Then we can get down to the nitty gritty and, if necessary make the response:  "Oh, I see, you don't want anyone who is not in a heterosexual relationship to be together in any legal way at all.  Well tough titties...this is a civil matter...not a religious matter." 
JMO, of course.