I've heard that it's an expression of love and commitment. Legally, it allows you to add your partner in life to your health insurance, as a spouse, to be able to visit your loved one if that person is in critical condition, in a hospital, and visitors are restricted to immediate family, only. Several more things along those lines. Quite a few reasons, if you stop to think about it. Keep D&D Civil.
No, I get you there. I'm just saying what would be the importance of saying 'married' if the government just stopped the whole marriage thing and left it to the church and recognized all unions as 'civil unions.'
I might go for that. Equality under the law is a groovy thing, unless we're all being equally screwed by that law. Keep D&D Civil.
Even if Western society evolves enough to allow gay marriage (just like we evolved enough to end other marital "traditions" like dowrys or legalized spousal rape), I can easily see a broad-based objection to polygamy, just based on the implications for employee health benefit costs, especially for polygamous employees who work in governemt (because of the gov't budget/tax implications).
I wasn't actually aware there woud be an allowance for civil unions. Change that to a federal guarantee, tack on protections for same sex partner employee benefits and, for the love of God, gay adoption, and some of us liberals might go along.
You're confused. We're only talking about the US, not the West. Consider this a last-gasp attempt by Right-wingers here. The momentum is against them on this topic. Polls show changing attitudes on this over time and already majority support among high schoolers and college students. Several nations already allow same-sex marriages, while many have other protections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage It's inevitable.
To an amendment? Never, and I'm just a moderate. I don't want hate embedded in a Comstitutional amendment.
I can imagine a bosom buddies TV remake where they get married for the financial benefits and not the buttsecks. Hollywood tells me that ambiguously gay people are funny.... I also don't mind Monkey Man bringing this issue up again. It allows more Americans to realize what a disgrace our government is becoming. Those who believe in the amendment should only look back 2 years ago when the issue all but vanished after Congressional elections. Pretty galling for them to assume that 2 years is enough TV time to forget. Most know by now that there aren't enough stateside support for a ban. They also know Bush's was only useful for appointing Supreme Court Justices that support their activist cause.
i'd like to go back to my suggestion.... get the government out of the marriage business altogether. the government will confirm "civil unions" for man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. for purposes of health insurance, tax filing, etc. these folks are all good. in addition...churches, synagogues, mosques, temples or whatever else can conduct "marriages." If you sense a spiritual element to your union with person x, have at it. churches, synagogues, mosques, temples can choose who they wish to marry and who they'd rather not. divorce makes far more a mockery of marriage than this stuff.
Why do we need constitutional amendments... God has the whole thing covered- Revelations 20:11-15 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Just to be mean and play against you: Why does religion get "marriage" when it existed for centuries as a contract BEFORE it was religious. True, there has always been a religious element for Christians (because of Paul) but it had a history long before. The earliest marriages were when a guy went and abducted a woman from another tribe - making her his property. With ancient civilization came more legal marriages based on money and power. Even after Paul marriages usually had more to do with money and family stuff than love or religion. Our modern concept of marriage comes almost exclusively from Victorian sentimentality and tradition. So what is marriage, how do we define it (from which era), and who gets to decide it all? Hey Max - how about having "Holy Marriage" and "Marriage"? Religious fol can say, "we've been holy married for ten years!" and all of the freaks can say, "we've been married for 10 years!" Of course the odds of any couple saying the above is less than 50%.
But it supports it. My point is that other major religions have always seen marriage as secular, time is irrelevant.
Just wanted to make clear that I'm against an amendment, of any kind, addressing marraige. I think we will progress to the point where gay marraige will be as accepted as "traditional" marraige, whatever that is... if you travel around the world, you'll find vast differences regarding how marraige is viewed between different cultures... several I have problems with, especially those that degrade women, and make a mockery of their rights as free human beings. The point is, most of us don't live in those other cultures, so our paramount interest is in how marraige is viewed in the United States. Just as it took women until the 20th century to gain the right to vote, and they are still, to this day, not treated equally in this country, it will take time for gay Americans to obtain the full measure of rights due to them as American citizens. It shouldn't take a long time, just as women shouldn't continue to be faced with less pay for equal work, and the continued "glass ceiling," preventing promotions due based on ability and accomplishment. My wife happens to be a woman who put her high heels through the glass ceiling, and has been very successful as an executive in state government. Women like her are the exception, not the rule. Gay Americans continue to face similiar obstacles. They will be overcome. I just wish it were sooner, rather than later. The blatant pandering by the GOP Congress, and the President, to the basest instincts of a minority of Americans, for a percieved political gain, doesn't help at all. In my opinion, they are going against the evolving inclinations of most Americans to judge people based on what they do, not what color their skin is, or their sex, or their religion, or their sexual orientation. Keep D&D Civil.
As a friend of mine said, shortly after the 2004 election, "I just hope that some day Republicans will be able to look their gay friends in the eyes and apologize for how they voted."
