Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
07:40 AM on 12/22/2008
This makes the most sense of all. Change, you never know where it will really lead.
06:37 AM on 12/22/2008
This only goes to show that religion is the brick around your neck when you try to swim. Some guy claims to knows what god (that nobody outside of a psychiatric hospital ever saw) thinks, so he has the right to tell you what to do. What if we make a law that requires a proof of god before they are allowed to preach? I have the right to impose that on them as much as they have the right to impose on me whatever their delusional brain tells them to. And even then - to ask for a proof is far more normal than to impose a law based on thin air.
03:26 PM on 12/22/2008
No. No true Christian claims to know the thoughts of the Lord. We have his written Word. Have you any proof as to the nonexistence of God? Neither can be proven with the usual methods. "Thin air" is the accumulated experience of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition (with Roman and English law thrown in) that has sustained many peoples through many difficult times. The only people attempting to impose anything are the gays with their petition (denied twice) to change the definition of marriage to suit themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
klmebane
11:01 AM on 12/23/2008
gay people aren't trying to force others to marry someone of the same sex. why are you trying to force me to marry someone of the opposite sex? if a same sex union is the only option i have, how is that different than requiring people to marry within their race?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
klmebane
11:02 AM on 12/23/2008
i meant "opposite sex union" instead of "same sex union".
05:56 AM on 12/22/2008
"Marriage license," legal document.

My first marriage ceremony was in the Catholic Church.

My second marriage ceremony was before a judge in Santa Ynez Valley.

Who cares? Presbyterian minister, Buddhist monk, judge in the county courthouse.

What's most important ...are the human and equal rights.
05:14 AM on 12/22/2008
Similar ideas were discussed today at the Daily Kos.
The diary title is "Obama Civil Unions - Better than Marriage!"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/21/154552/19/705/675594

It's for couples who prefer:
* a Union that doesn't require the endorsement of any adulterer, divorcee, or church
* a Union with no history of women becoming men's property or promising to "obey"
* a Union that celebrates equal protection - with no history of denying interracial or same-sex couples their right to happiness and a family

For couples who hold those values, such a Civil Union (with all 1138 federal rights, of course) is obviously much better and packed with much more sanctity than a Marriage.
05:09 AM on 12/22/2008
To differentiate a civil union from a marriage is exactly what needs to be done, not only for equal rights, but also for disestablishment. This is exactly a point I've been trying to drive home as well.

Doing so is the Right Thing from a utilitarian perspective. Not only does it open the door for homosexuals, but also to the atheists such as myself who do not recognize the authority or existence of any god or "holy" book. The problem of course is, civil unions are not recognized beyond state boundaries. The only way for this to be a feasible solution is for the federal government to pass a law proclaiming that civil unions must be offered and legally recognized in every state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobSF94117
05:04 AM on 12/22/2008
I'm not sure what to make of articles like this. Perhaps, being newly wed, you don't realize that your marriage -- you state-sanctioned civil marriage -- is a legal status recognized around the world.

That's what marriage IS. Whether in the U.S., France, Russia, China, Cuba, South Africa, etc. It's a legal status determined by the government everywhere. There are a few countries where the dominant religion maintains all the marriage records, but even there, the church tracks civil marriages.

And, regarding the tradition argument, civil marriage IS our heritage. Religion didn't even enter into the picture -- the wedding photo, if you will -- until less than 1000 years ago. Roman marriage laws, upon which our laws are based, were strictly civil. I say we stick with THAT tradition.
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
08:12 AM on 12/22/2008
I agree. Even in the Americas, the Puritans started with only civil marriages in Massachusetts in the early 1600's. Religion was not incorporated until later, and nobody would consider Puritan society to have been a secular oriented one, like the government we have today.

I say "keep it simple" : expand civil marriage equality to all couples across the US, and let religions do what they want. That is the most fair solution for everyone.
02:02 PM on 12/22/2008
The logic was similar to the idea that some religious people refuse to swear "so help me God" in court -- the idea is that they don't want to sully their religion by mixing it in this vulgar, civil government stuff.
05:03 AM on 12/22/2008
Christine,
A very similar suggestion was discussed today at the Daily Kos
in "Obama Civil Unions - Better Than Marriage!"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/21/154552/19/705/675594

By the way, please advise your mom Speaker Pelosi to offer to testify about her briefings on torture and warrantless wiretapping.

Obama says he doesn't want a "partisan" hunt for truth. So she and Jay Rockefeller must come clean for justice to be served.
She shouldn't wait until she is subpeonaed, praying her role will be forgotten. She should apologize for neglecting the constitution and the torture conventions, when her country needed her most.

Someone she trusts and respects should tell her.
02:54 AM on 12/22/2008
Congratulations on your marriage!
I agree with you that all unions should be recognized the same. My wife and are one of the 18000 couples that Ken Starr is after. We were married 6 years ago in a spiritual ceremony, and filed for domestic partnership at that time. In September we paid for a license and got married again.
A few benefits from that legal marriage:
If my spouse is hospitalized in an emergency, I don't have to have a photocopy of my domestic partnership papers to have a say in her treatment (though I am legally responsible for her medical bills)
If I die, my spouse automatically gets tenancy of our home, my share of our business, and custody of our children.
Spouses cannot be forced to testify in a court of law against each other
Marriage travels, domestic partnership laws change from state to state and don't even exist in some places.
Right now we are both healthy and are certainly not criminals, however these are only 4 of about 300 in California, and over 1000 federally.
The frustrating thing for me is that millions of people think it's OK to discuss,vote and try to dissolve my marriage. I think it's very rude, because it's not anyones business.
02:07 PM on 12/22/2008
Congratulations on your marriage and family! File me under the "Whatsit too ya?" crowd. I can't get my head around these people who are so obsessed with other people's relationships. Have they nothing better to do? Even Rick "Gay = Incest" Warren manages to find better ways to spend his time (such as fighting poverty) than actually making it his sole life's work to interfere with the lives of his neighbors.
02:46 AM on 12/22/2008
The people have spoken LiVE with it
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GeoNorth
Some say I'm an enigma, but I'm not easily figured
06:08 AM on 12/22/2008
At one time, the people also wanted blacks to be second class citizens, but that's not what we as Americans do. Speak out all you want but discriminating based on emotion is never a good thing. Numbers don't make bigotry right.
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
08:20 AM on 12/22/2008
Tyranny of the Majority!
01:56 AM on 12/22/2008
Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage/go together like a horse and carriage.

What rhymes with civil union? Nothing.
02:07 PM on 12/22/2008
That just means nobody on this thread is a songwriter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mavin1620
01:36 AM on 12/22/2008
Instead of civil union, which is simply marriage under another name, let's bring the Ninth Amendment out and use it:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Join the 9th Amendment movement now.
01:27 AM on 12/22/2008
1) The back and forth about civil v. religious marriage...Come on guys, of course (civil) marriage is different than a wedding or marriage ceremony in a church. Has anyone really been thinking otherwise?
2) No reason to have ever made civil unions, actually, which weren't made for gays but straight co- habitating couples, in order, actually, to recognize the equity in treating certain of those relationships are more than just two roommates or lovers living together, something like that. Not all states have them. Not all that many, actually. They are not marriages.
3) Gays and straights alike should have equity under the law...if CA have civil unions, a straight couple and a gay couple should both be eligible; if CA has marriages, then a straight couple and a gay couple should both be eligible. In other words, that the two are both men or that the two are both women or that one is woman and one a man...NO DIFFERENCE.
This ISN'T hard;
Whether I have chosen to be gay (I haven't), doesn't matter. Whether you've chosen to be straight or just discovered that you were, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that you don't like who I like. It doesn't matter that I don't like whom you like. Or that you don't like that I like whom I like. I get to like someone. You get to like someone. You get to be the better half of a couple; me too. Same difference.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cnobody
chicka chicka boom
11:12 PM on 12/21/2008
this is the viewpoint i've held for a long time now. the problem is the word "marriage." strike it from government documents and we'll all be fine. you get some funny looks, though, when you try and explain this point of view to traditionalists.
02:10 PM on 12/22/2008
You don't strike it from the documents. You simply enact, at the federal level, some other terminology such as "spousal union" and direct that all government benefits and responsibilities pertaining to marriage shall also apply to spousal unions.

Everybody happy?
Norsky
RINO some say. I say Republican.
09:54 PM on 12/21/2008
I have news for the author. Allmarriages are civil marriages. That is the reason for the marriage license. The fact that it is performed in a religious setting does not eliminate the fact that it is a civil marriage.
08:52 PM on 12/21/2008
I agree. If marriage is a "sacred institution" then it should be left to churches, synagogues, and mosques. If Prop 8 is not invalidated by the CA supreme court, it seems like the logical next step is to prohibit all state sanctioned marriages and allow only civil unions for everyone.