- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 30, 2012 at 4:21 am #775419
SeekingEurosParticipantRev Morgan and the 9 other WS ministers – thank you. Your message is powerful. .
Kdgld thank you for putting yourself out there. Well said.
I am not gay, but like you, I fully support R74. It is very sad that this required a vote, but I am confident it will pass. I have never understood why anyone would oppose equal rights.
October 30, 2012 at 5:22 am #775420
kootchmanMemberAs I posted many months ago.. I have no visceral objection to same sex marriage. I am not uncomfortable with the issue. I am uncomfortable with benefit extensions that were clearly designed in another era, when a working father , disabled or deceased, (and by convention the mother did not work,) was catastrophic to those children. If in that context, if a married same sex couple were legal guardians of children, I would extend those benefits for the vitality of children. I am mulling it over. Perhaps under the revamp of an overburdened SS system, we should return to the roots of SS.. as not an all encompassing entitlement, but one to protect children. Only child rearing couples would be required to participate in SS. For the protection of children. Those of us who do not raise children can opt out of the system. Then, inheritance law, which is covered by civil law insures the resources accumulated in a partnership are transferred as directed by law.
October 30, 2012 at 5:32 am #775421
EdSaneParticipantI voted for R74. Personally I see it as an extension of the civil rights movements. As to the original post. Christianity is not tolerant to the LGBTQ community. On a personal level I can understand supporting them but on a religious level the bible is rather explicit.
October 30, 2012 at 5:40 am #775422
shed22ParticipantThat’s good that you don’t have a visceral objection, kootchman. We’ve all been hinging on that.
Rev. Peg, thank you for your public recognition of equal rights, human decency, and acceptance.
Anything less is nonsense.
October 30, 2012 at 5:55 am #775423
kootchmanMemberOctober 30, 2012 at 2:58 pm #775424
amaliaParticipantWhy should I care about gay marriage? What’s wrong with just a civil union, wherein all rights that married straights are granted?
It might be tempting to accept that, but what if you were unfairly denied something by people who don’t know you, people who have the rights you want and take them for granted, yet who feel justified denying you the same rights for no good reason? Even if it’s just the right to call yourself “married”? If all your life, people with no stake in the matter got away with judging you and defining what you can and cannot do. People who don’t even understand that biology is behind sexual orientation and possibly think it is against the rule of some god they worship. People who think it’s okay for them to impose the rule of this god on you. That is absurd and unfair, and I can’t believe that our government is even having this conversation.
Equal rights for all. Anything else is indefensible.
October 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm #775425
JoBParticipantall marriages are civil unions unless they are blessed by the church.
I am part of a legal civil union that happens to be a legally sanctioned marriage.
because my civil union is called marriage it is recognized federally and i and my spouse are granted rights that go with our legal status regardless of which state we happen to be traveling through.
If the civil unions some states create for same sex couples or cohabitants granted all of the same rights and privileges of those they call marriage in every state of our union there would be no need for I-74.
If you are married, your closest relative is your spouse. If you aren’t it could be parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins or even relatives twice or more removed. Your assets.. your very life.. could be handed over to people who barely know you while your life partner is denied even the right to say goodbye.
Let’s stop bandying words here.
If you want to have your marriage blessed by a church that is your right.
But that blessing doesn’t make you any more or less married than those who choose a civil ceremony… Once legally sanctioned a marriage is a marriage is a marriage.
Denying other committed couples the rights that you enjoy because you are able to legally wed is discrimination…
I am with Amelia
“Equal rights for all. Anything else is indefensible.”
October 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm #775426October 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm #775427
kgdlgParticipantJoB, thank you.
October 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm #775428
Peg MorganMemberAmalia, JoB,
Yes, and yes to your expressions of truth. One more week to wait for election day. A lot at stake.
Rev. Peg,
Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation
October 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm #775429
anonymeParticipantOpponents of Ref. 74 tread on dangerous ground, IMO. Their focus on heterosexual reproduction defines marriage, by default, as a breeding license. Therefore, any heterosexual couple who does not or cannot breed should not be allowed to marry, and any marriage that does not “bear fruit” should be annulled.
October 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm #775430
amaliaParticipantRev. Peg:
My intent had been to thank you and then I completely forgot in my post :).
Thank you and the other clergy (if that’s the right word) for speaking out.
October 30, 2012 at 4:55 pm #775431
DBPMember>> any marriage that does not “bear fruit” should be annulled.
–I’ve been trying to make that case with my own wife for years now. No luck.
October 30, 2012 at 7:37 pm #775432
SJ2MemberI will be voting yes to approve ref 74. If it does not pass, maybe we need to think about giving the religious right what they seem to want. Marriage for one man and one woman, period. No divorces. If they really want to protect the family, wouldn’t outlawing divorce protect the family more than denying same sex couples the right to marry?
October 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm #775433
kgdlgParticipantKootch, you are entitled to your opinion but I would urge you not to levy your criticism of entitlement programs on the backs of our kids/families. We should have one set of rules for all families. You can fight your fight against entitlements (vote for Romney) and still vote approve for my family. I would attach a pic here if I knew how. Miws, how do you do that?
October 30, 2012 at 8:24 pm #775434
datamuseParticipantAmalia and JoB put it very well.
You may well argue that marriage shouldn’t be a civic institution, but history shows that it was well before it was considered a religious sacrament—that mostly resulted from the local priest being the only person around for miles who could record that a marriage had occurred; in some places, it required nothing more than the couple declaring that they were married, no witnesses required.
You can argue that it shouldn’t be…but it is. I submit that taking a stand on that question in this context is…odd, to say the least, since it won’t do anything to change the legal structure of marriage overall, insofar as the granting of benefits and responsibilities that accrue once you sign the certificate are concerned.
Marriage, legal marriage, is a civil contract. That makes the ability to enter into it a civil right. A vote against R-74 is a vote to deny this right to a group of people for, from a legal perspective, no reason whatsoever. Frankly, it seems to me that if you get rid of marriage as a civil contract, and create other legal structures to take care of the rights and benefits that accrue upon marriage, you’re increasing the government’s involvement, not decreasing it. And if you’re going to try to dissolve those rights and benefits entirely…well…good luck with that.
Using that as justification for voting against R-74 strikes me as a jerk move, really.
October 30, 2012 at 10:56 pm #775435
miwsParticipantkgdlg, Wish I could help you on that, but about the only thing I know about posting one’s own pics here, is that the pics need to be uploaded to a hosting site, such as Flicker.
I only know how to post pics from places like Google.
DBP is the pro on that, and in fact posted a tutorial thread on that topic, maybe as far back as a year ago now.
Sorry I can’t one of more help! :-(
October 31, 2012 at 7:35 am #775436
kootchmanMemberI’ll leave it blank… neither side has a good argument.
October 31, 2012 at 12:26 pm #775437
JoBParticipantOctober 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm #775438
kgdlgParticipantKootch, I am sorry my personal appeal has not swayed you. Again, please consider voting to approve 74. It means a lot to my family. Next year we hope to visit my brother in Florida, knowing it is a state that doesn’t recognize our DP rights. It is true that having marriage won’t change this immediately, but it will set us on a path to a day when we don’t have to worry about being in an accident or falling sick in a state that is anti gay, where we would be denied access to each other in the hospital. I am sorry you don’t view this as a good enough argument.
October 31, 2012 at 4:40 pm #775439
yes2wsParticipantThe stance of human decency isn’t good enough? :-(
October 31, 2012 at 4:47 pm #775440
datamuseParticipantKootch, why do you think that this issue is the appropriate one on which to make your stand concerning marriage, especially since the outcome won’t cost you a thing either way?
There’s a word, and not a very nice one, for making other people pay a price for your beliefs.
November 2, 2012 at 8:59 pm #775441
kootchmanMemberThanks for the information and perspectives.
November 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm #775442
kootchmanMemberIs this the objective? The state has to affirm a relationship for it to be valid?
These couples have the same longing to have their relationship recognized by the state as their heterosexual friends have
While the law allowing these couples to register as Domestic Partners was a significant step in the right direction, it does not carry the cultural significance and meaning that marriage does.
November 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm #775443
kgdlgParticipantKootch, I get that you don’t want the State in any of your business. But here is the rub for my family – the State currently validates “Civil Marriage” for straights and not for gays, and that gets recognized by the Federal government while domestic partnerships don’t. I welcome you to run a referendum taking “civil marriage” away from anyone, but in the absence of that, my family continues on at a great disadvantage to straight families that are offered the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. Please consider voting yes so that all families can be one day recognized in the same way.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.