Massachusetts backs gay marriage

by ignored_one 60 Replies latest social current

• 

  czarofmischief

  but I really don't think that the Republican party is made up of a primarily ultraconservative right-wing element, any more than the Democrats are all left-wing extremists.

  Exactly - most of us are primarily "conservative" when it comes to asserting America's international priorities and getting the government out of private life. We have environmentalists, health care reformers, gays, blacks, Jews, as well as the stereotyped WASP contingent.

  Most of us are moderate in terms of reform efforts. We don't want to eliminate welfare, for example, but we would like to check abuses and see that it helps people get back to work, which is what it was intended to be in the first place. Of course, any extremist who opposes the idea of welfare in any context is going to also vote Republican, because we are the closest thing he's got. And he's probably going to make a lot of noise on his one issue, noise that makes the opposition perhaps come to the conclusion that ALL Republicans want to eliminate welfare. Which is nonsense.

  The ideology is personal freedom and personal responsibility, which appeals to certain individuals like me.

  As for the government legislating morality? No! Social structure can withstand polygamy, can withstand homosexual unions, but it cannot withstand government interference in my personal choices. You might as well set up an established church if that's what you are going to do. And that is something I would fight and kill and die to prevent.

  CZAR
• 

  patio34

  I don't consider myself Republican nor Democrat, but an Independent. There's good statesmen and women in both parties.

  I also consider myself an Independent who cares about the environment (don't we all really?), who wants good schools and health care for everyone, who doesn't want undeserving lazy people supported by my tax $$, etc. I think that's pretty conservative.

  I also think gay people should have the same legal rights and benefits as heteros. It seems to me that some here are pushing the "homophobe" buttons again. The slippery slope argument is not applicable to this, imo.

  I'm glad that the legislators aren't reacting to emotional prejudices.

  Pat
• 

  chillyrodent

  Court rules in favor of homosexuals
  Christians fear an end to traditional marriage
  and abortion clinic shootings
  
  WorldNutDaily.org
  
  Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce
  this morning, as others raped their children and household
  pets, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled
  that gay people are citizens too.
  
  "My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he
  dry-humped the fender of a parked car. "My marriage isn't
  worth anything," he insisted. "I feel no connection to my wife
  and children and I just want to do whatever I please, when it
  pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly
  woman and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
  
  This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on
  every street in every city & town in America. Once devoted
  parents & spouses, America's Christians are denouncing any
  bonds between themselves and their families as they embark
  on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
  
  "We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti
  human rights activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying
  equal rights would destroy marriage, the family and even
  Christianity itself. And now it's happened," he said. "You
  should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had to
  have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom
  this morning."
  
  The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching.
  So big is the change that swept America this morning that it may
  be days before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As
  things stand, one uncomfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob
  Jones University, defecating on his bible upon hearing the news,
  while other witnesses have come forward to report that they had
  seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition and
  the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
  
  Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the
  thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned
  children. It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and
  that Christians will yet accept the financial reponsibility for their
  families, even if they no longer love them and insist on
  masturbating in public.
• 

  heathen

  I think it interesting that sanfranciscojim says that he is more interested in tax breaks and bennefits . I'm not real sure how all that works since I am single but not gay and I sure wouldn't want to marry someone just because of that . I think the judges and sea captains that legalize marriages are not performing a holy union ceremony but are merely providing a service that allows for the legal documentation of people who wish to be recognized as married but don't feel religious about it . Most of the time hetero sexual couples have children and would like everything to be legal as far as last names . IMO . Actually I would like to hear from more married people to get their thoughts on this . I am just making generalizations here but makes sense .
• 

  Gretchen956

  sanfranciscojim says that he is more interested in tax breaks and bennefits . I'm not real sure how all that works since I am single but not gay and I sure wouldn't want to marry someone just because of that .

  We (as gay people) want our unions to receive the same protections as heterosexuals. As a single person I didn't say, hmmm I want some tax breaks, I think I'll hook up with someone and see if we can get some kind of break. Any more than I would have done as a straight person.

  The first time I saw my partner I remember thinking, this is the person I want to marry. There was a connection right away that touched my soul. As I got to know her, I fell in love with her. We have been together two years and I hope that we grow old together. We are happy and have a special bond.

  Now, we aren't allowed to get married. So what options do we have? We could get a lawyer and for several thousand dollars file power of attorney, wills, and medical documents. But even with that we cannot inherit each others properties without severe tax repercussions, I cannot be allowed into the critical care unit at the hospital should she be in ICU because I am not family. Two court cases recently have ruled against the partner and in favor of the family in the matter of life support, even though the partner was the person who knew the wishes of that partner in the matter.

  So, yes, there are some civil matters here that require equality. I could care less if your church doesn't want to recognize it. But I have tried to be heterosexual, I was married twice. It was a pretense that hurt me and both my exhusbands. (We parted amicably.) I am true to myself now and happier than I have ever been. And I would like equal protections under the law. Not too much to ask.

  Gretchen
• 

  SanFranciscoJim

  I think it interesting that sanfranciscojim says that he is more interested in tax breaks and bennefits . I'm not real sure how all that works since I am single but not gay and I sure wouldn't want to marry someone just because of that .

  Heathen, the benefits of marriage that are denied gay people are much more far reaching than tax or financial benefits. For example:

  * The right to combined health benefits. Currently, my partner and I have to carry separate insurance policies. If we were married, we would be able to enjoy a combined health insurance policy at a reduced rate.

  * The right to hospital visitation. In many areas, seriously ill patients are allowed visitation in hospitals by "family members only". I could potentially be barred from visiting my partner in his sick bed if I were not viewed as a family member.

  * The right to sue in civil court. Remember the Knoller/Noel case in San Francisco, where the lesbian woman was mutilated and killed by those vicious dogs? Had that happened in many other less-liberal parts of the country, her partner would not have had the right to sue her partner's murderers in civil court. Marriage would have given her that automatic right.

  * No contesting of death benefits. The only family members I have are two brothers who remain quite distant from me. Without marriage, I could find my estate split among them instead of going to my partner as I wish. This especially applies to gay persons who die without a will.

  With these benefits also comes the responsibility of the marriage vows. By allowing same-sex couples to legally marry, this would create a greater atmosphere of stability and responsibility within the gay community, but more importantly, to those who look at the gay community as irresponsible and promiscuous. We would in effect be integrated into the rest of society as "normalized". Achieving a status of normalcy will not make homophobia disappear. It will, however, give a greater legitimacy to our love for our partners to the public at large, who for the most part are unconcerned with homosexual relationships because our status does not directly involve them.
• 

  patio34

  Hi San Francisco Jim,

  Thanks for the summation of rights denied to gay couples. Congratulations to you for standing up for your rights and replying well to slightly polemic and presumptuous posts. Good for you!

  Pat
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  OMG, chilly rodent - that was priceless.

  Well said as always, SFJ.
• 

  Aztec

  I think it interesting that sanfranciscojim says that he is more interested in tax breaks and bennefits . I'm not real sure how all that works since I am single but not gay and I sure wouldn't want to marry someone just because of that .

  Heathen, I am single and hetero and I could not disagree with you more! I'm quite sure the main motivation for homosexuals wanting to get married is the same as heterosexuals; love. Jim and Gretchen put it far better than I can so I'll just leave it at that.

  I think the judges and sea captains that legalize marriages are not performing a holy union ceremony but are merely providing a service that allows for the legal documentation of people who wish to be recognized as married but don't feel religious about it .

  Ummmm yeah. Why shouldn't that be available for homosexuals as well?

  Most of the time hetero sexual couples have children and would like everything to be legal as far as last names . IMO .

  This point has no merit whatsoever. What does possible future progeny have to do with marriage? Last I checked you don't need to be married to have children. I'm a single parent and my son shares my last name. People want to get married for many reasons. Number one (I would think) is that they are in love. Numbers 2 through any number are sharing of insurance benefits, the security it provides (including being considered a family member when it comes to hospital situations), legal reasons, the acceptance of being assured that they are not abnormal, and acceptance in general. How is that wrong?

  Yeru, I find your assertations of equality between homosexual unions and polygamy, beastility and incest insulting. You are smarter than that! Please don't insult our intelligence further! I know that you know better.

  Chillyrodent, that was funny! Welcome aboard!

  ~Aztec
• 

  Kaethra

  mmmm...chillyrodent...love that name! and amen to your post.

  Hey! this might be a good place to post that list of "interracial" vs. "gay" marriage quotes