Irish..

You gave in before me... neener neener neener :)

I too am keeping my opinions to myself.. not gonna say either way... this... like religion and politics are too hott for me to touch..

Tess....Good post above with one major flaw.

The U.S. isnt a democracy, we do not rule by majority of the people. It is a representative republic, we send people to vote for us. Major differences in how things work. Those less than 1000 men and women in Washington for the most part do not represent their people, they represent themselves and their interests, all parties all lines, with only a few exceptions.

Woah! could you imagine if the majority actually did rule?
That would scare the bejesus out of me...

What if they were steralized and had kids only by adoption like gay couples, then would it be ok?

Right you are, STO, we are a democratic republic, but the principles are still the same. The majority rules. The elected officials are elected by the majority in their state or district, and the majority of the lawmakers prevail in legislative matters.

But the key difference is that they dont have to listen to the majority if they dont want to. 99.9% of the people in a state could ask for something and if the representative disagrees, he can vote against it. Sure he/she risks not being re-elected, but that is the distinct difference.

This is an issue of equal rights. Rights all American's are entitled to, or at least should be. For years blacks weren't allowed to vote, they also weren't allowed to eat or even piss in the same place as a white person. They weren't even allowed to sit in the front of a bus. Breaking an unjust law is sometimes necessary to bring about change, as long as it does not hurt anyone. I applaud the Mayor of San Francisco for being bold enough to challenge a ridiculous law. Ridiculous that is, if you believe this is the land of the free.

Now a question for mrbri... Is this statement meant to infer that a gay marriage is the same as marrying an animal? You also have yet to post a logical reason why gays should not marry. Just because you think it should only be for hetero couples and you believe it was intended that way is not a logical argument.

I did not mean it in the same way I was trying to think of other situations that would be illegal. Maybe there is no logical reason they should not marry, but why can't they marry a person of the opposite sex, what drives them to be a homosexual? Again when I said that I thought marriage should only be for hetero couples I was only stating my opinion and my belief. What is a logical argument that says a homo couple should be married?

IMO....They should be allowed to marry or form a union or whatever for the exact same reason hetero couples do. Why do hetero couples marry????

Just watched "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO, and one of the guests was Ian McKellan. (Sharni, you would have been proud of him :) )

The subject of gay marriage came up, and Ian McKellan recited this inscription from the walls of Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

(in a letter to George Washington from Thomas Jefferson)

Again, the extraordinary wisdom of the Founding Fathers is shown. I think this helps put this whole discussion into focus.

But why if I'm not attracted to a man should I be forced to live next to a sleeping shitting walking working hardon? I prefer women, my preference for women "drives" me to be homosexual.


Do you think that my personal happiness is any less important than yours? Do you think that I love any less, that I don't worry about the people I hold dear?

that which you do unto the least of my people you do unto me..... or somethin like that right? you know most christian based religons profess you should "see Jesus in everyone" and "treat others as you would like to be treated" how would you like it if I said you can't marry a woman, and i think you're going to hell if you're attracted to a woman? my opinion, my beliefs.....

okay anyway

Kyttn

To have the right and responsibility to choose just like hetro couples. What makes their love any less important than anyone else? If you were gay wouldn't you want the same rights as anyone else and the freedom to make choices to suit your needs and wants?

One could say (and I don't advocate it, I'm using this to proove a point...bear with me) that with the advent of women's rights in this country of ours...logically, there's no purpose to anyone being married. Women no longer need the protection of a man, financially or practically. Children no longer need to be "legitimate" to claim their rights from both parents. There are even financial dangers in marrying someone....heaven help you the day you realize that your beloved spouse is leaving you after having maxed out your joint credit cards (my poor dad...not a good day). Frankly, it's not logical to need this legal or social reinforcement of what's now primarily an emotional bond.

Nonetheless, this archaic institution is still woven into the fabric of our society. Spouses get special priveleges, ones too numerous to be conveniently indexed. And not all of them legally binding. Nonetheless, we could as easily settle this dispute, make everyone equal...by abolishing the institution of marriage altogether. It is, in actuality, the "logical" answer....if logic really is the problem here. I don't think it is.

Heterosexuals (SOME of them, by no means all) want to get married. Hell, _I_ want to get married someday. Not just because it makes getting a mortage mroe straightforward, but because it's a way to confirm our relationship in front of the world....and to make the world recognize that it exists. Add to the emotional need to formalize emotional coupling the economic and legal benefits given to a spouse. Not only does it, in some cases, change your tax status (and for the record, not always for the better)...but mortgage companies look more favorably on married couples. Having tried to buy a house with a close friend/roommate....this I know to be true. Medically, there's a hell of a lot of difference between "life partner" and "next of kin." Legally, my partner (if I had one) can be forced to testify against me because they're not a spouse. Beyond emotional and financial benefits, you've got purely social ones. And these are the hardest ones to talk about, because here practicality and logic go out the window. Anyone who's gone from bf/gf to fiance or spouse knows that it changes your social status. In the most trivial example I can think of, a spouse can get me out of a class to come to the phone when I'm needed....a boy friend cannot. And when necessary, my bf uses "husband power" to get things done. Husbands can talk to bank managers about my missing debit card, bank managers won't talk to boyfriends. Illogical, but a real life example. In a much more serious example...the business I work in requires me to relocate a lot, universities will bend over backward to help a spouse find a job in the new location. They will not do the same for a boyfriend. Note, it's a purely social distinction, they're under no legal obligation to do either. They just assume that my spouse getting a job is a deal breaker, while boyfriends are more temporary and therefore I might leave them behind. Afterall...if I was really serious about the relationship....I'd have married the guy, right? There are loads I'm missing out on, I know...but it's just a quick cross section of why this token hetero wants to be married. And I see no reason here that wouldn't be equally applicable to a homosexual.

The emotional desire to acknowledge one's relationship is part of human nature...and homosexuals are all too human. They want the acknowledgement. Could that be given to them with a civil union? It could, but only with the undesirable reminder that they are different, and in the eys of many....not "really" married. The financial pressures to be married are all part of living in this country and wanting the best life you can get for yourself. There's no logical reason why these shouldn't apply equally to homosexual people. Could they be granted with a civil union. Honestly, not easily. Seperate but equal didn't work in the segregated south purely because seperate institutions implied that one group was better than another...and therefore got consistently better treatment. Even before desegregation...black americans had to fight to maintain the equal part of "seperate but equal," and never really got it. There might be similar stuggles with banks, insurance companies, HMOs, adoption agencies, benefit agencies, etc. ad naseum to establish that in each case "yes folks, civil unions are the same thing HERE too." It's not logical to put the country through that when the simplest answer is to give these people the same protection everyone else has just by lifting the ban on marriage. The social pressures to marry, well....there's the problem. Of course gay couples feel them....but it's more than that, because granting the title of "marriage" to a gay union implies they deserve the same social acceptance as "hetero" couples. They don't see themselves as different (nor do I, for that matter), but the people who resist sharing their instutuion need social affirmation that homosexuals _are_ different. And both sides are right insofar as extending this social status to gay marriages is going to be a step towards allowing them into our precious concept of what's normal. It thrills some, scares others, and has propelled us into another age of social change and education. The only thing we can do is keep talking about it...and thank the brave people who force us to have this issue in front of our eyes as much as possible. However they choose to do it, civil disobenience is civil disobedience....and laws frequently get broken.

I'm not going to go into what makes a gay person gay here...there's too much, and this is already far too long. God knows if you're still reading I owe you a beer. But here's my problem...the constitution was intentionally written to be as inclusive as possible in its era. We've gone through several waves of broadening in this country, admitting that our founding fathers didn't get the details right the first time. But boy oh boy did they get the basic principle right....all citizens have the same rights. For better or worse, none of us are special, and there should be no second class citizens. By that logic, because the gay communities are good, tax paying Americans...they already have the right to marry. They're just demanding that right be enforced.

And honestly, I think it will be. Eventually. And my kids will be just as amazed as I was to learn that racial segregation was ever considered normal...or as my mom was to learn that people used to think that women couldn't handle money or be trusted to vote.

Much more than my 2cents. Sorry...it's been building up for a while.

Very well articulated, Ginger. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it :)

*hugs*

Thanks Bel....I officially owe you a drink ;). Let me know when you'll be by to collect.