MA court approves same-sex marriages: what do you think?

[God]

Many, many people like to invoke my name in this contentious debate. They attribute all kinds of wacky sayings and attitudes to me, which annoys the Hell out of me, and is one of the many ways to get on my Smite List. But enough about my Earth-flooding wrath... What do I really think about gay marriage?

Well, being God, I see lots of weird things. Still, I wasn't very comfortable with "alternative lifestyles" in the beginning. Things were just a little too malleable, just a little too fluid, and just a little too complicated. especially since humans had 14 different genders then (having to build 14 separate restrooms for every facility was a pain). But then came the big turning point in my life... I had a kid!

I thought I'd give him the full mortal experience by leaving him with a human family, at least, that's what I told myself. In the blink of an eye—30 years (I have big eyes)—he was all grown up. I checked back on him, expecting him to be a chip off the old block. Instead, I found him larking around Judea with a bunch of guys. I was devastated.

It's just an "alternative lifestyle" until it hits home. Naturally, I blamed myself. I had been a bad father. I should've been there with him more. Oh why didn't I leave him with manly Centurions instead of wimpy furniture makers? I went away to do some serious soul searching in one of my other universes. Finally, I came to terms with it. He is what he is, and as long as he's happy, I'll be happy for him.

I came back expecting to have a happy reunion with my son, only to find that he'd been the victim of a local kangaroo court. This was the real tragedy I could have actually stopped. I let my silly, irrelevant ignorance take me over when I should've been helping my son.

Please don't make the same mistake I did. Accept, embrace and help people, no matter their romantic inclinations, to build families and lives.

[thisthingcalledlove]

Originally posted by satsang
Well, I think buggery is beautiful so long as I'm not on the down side of it. AIDS is doing a pretty good job of thinning the crowd out, so we heterosexuals have no fear of becoming a minority. There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not? Time will demonstrate what works. And if you can't wait for the ending, read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. History always repeats itself - until we get the lesson.

I'm gay, by the way, and, not only do I have many friends who've survived the AIDS epidemic, but have thrived since the 80's. No offense but I've seen a lot more gay unions last longer than some straight marriages I know of. Oh, and the Roman Empire had a lot of stupid stupid leaders...just like...ummm...Dubya! Does that make him gay, too...?

Ok...back to the issue at hand...I don't think marriage should be extended to my brethren...why? It's religious! I think it's best to keep church and state separate, not mix the two, and marriage certainly mixes the two.

Oh, by the way, you're in a figure skating forum

[windspirit]

Originally posted by thisthingcalledlove
Ok...back to the issue at hand...I don't think marriage should be extended to my brethren...why? It's religious! I think it's best to keep church and state separate, not mix the two, and marriage certainly mixes the two.

Um... marriage is not religious.

[thisthingcalledlove]

Originally posted by windspirit
Um... marriage is not religious.

Ummm...how is marriage NOT religious? The reasons why mostly church groups and right-wing republicans are opposing gay marriages is due to religion. Now, I admit, marriage is an icon of religion, so let's keep marriage for straight people (the reason the churches won't allow gays to marry is they can't reproduce, and its 'unnatural'.)

[Mathman]

"Read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. -- Satsang

I think Satsang means the Greeks. Alexander the Great conquered everybody he could find. But, being gay, he died without leaving a natural heir. The empire immediately fell apart.

Richard the Lionhearted, on the other hand, had to endure the embarrassment of his mother (Eleanor of Aquitaine) periodically showing up in his military camps and publicly berating him for spending all his time in the tents of his soldiers instead of doing his duty to the crown. Namely, get married (to a woman) and produce an heir. He didn't, and the dreaded King John ascended to the throne, with his twelve-year-old bride.

About religion, politics and marriage, my favorite is Henry, the Eight of that Name to Rule England. The Pope told him he couldn't divorce or behead his wife, so he denounced popery and started the Church of England.

Mathman

[sk8fanconvert]

I've held off commenting on this topic for quite a while, because it hits a little too close, but that's also the reason that I'm finally saying something. There's been quite a bit of philosophizing in here as if this is some abstract conceptual debate. It isn't, and I think people who are materially affected have a responsibility to speak up.

Marriage is both a religious ceremony and a civil contract. There are already churches that will "marry" gays or bless "unions" (same thing!). There are a lot of churches that won't. "Legal" marriage does not require a religious ceremony. We're not talking about forcing churches to marry gays. We're talking about extending the contractual rights of civil marriage (tax benefits, rights of survivorship, health benefits, etc) to consenting adult couples regardless of their genders. (By the way, with those rights go responsibilities- for example, you assume each other's debts.)

I really don't care what it's called; civil unions will work just fine. It will acknowledge the reality in which many people now live- they are responsible for each other, but that is not recognized officially (i.e. legally). I'll give just one modest, specific example: since I'm not legally married to my partner (and I can't marry him as we are the same sex), I cannot use sick leave or family emergency leave to care for him while he is ill. This is despite the fact that my employer has a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. Go figure.

I think that legal acknowledgement of gay relationships is just; it also does not require that people approve or accept them, but only tolerate them. For me, I find acceptance much the preferable, but tolerance will work just fine. If people can't do either, then we are enemies, make no mistake, but unless they're willing to back it up with violence (as some clearly are) then that won't really bother all that much either.

[Doggygirl]

100% totally agree with each and every thing you said. This issue does get sticky because of the seemingly interchangeable word "marriage" which is used to describe both the legal union as well as the religious union. That truly is two completely different things. I wish that somehow a formal distinction in terms could be broadly made. I think more people would support the idea of legal unions between same sex couples if the word "marriage" could be reserved for the religious side, and we could call the "marriage certificate" and civil ceremonies something else.

I couldn't agree with you more that both rights AND responsibilities should be extended to people willing to make the commitment.

What "gets" me most about the debate is both heterosexual and homosexual people who want the benefits (i.e. ability to get on each other's health insurance) WITHOUT the responsibilities that come with a legal union (debt is a great example IMHO!).

I hope that one day in your state that you and your partner are able to make your union legal, formalize your commitment to one another, and enjoy the benefits and responsbilities of your partnership.

Happy New Year to you both!

DG

[Piel]

Of course the responsibilities would go with the benefits. That's why I think that people who commit to living as a "household" is a good term. to cover the various situations. A legal term without religious or romantic implications( which shouldn't be the business of government or legal entities IMO ). There are more and more situations where adults are committed to living as a family unit but are not entitled to any of the benefits given to the tradfitional husband wife famly unit. These folks are just as committed to their "household" and very often maintain the relationships longer than traditional married couples. I don't think these people want something for nothing or are trying to get out of being responsible. Anyone who has ever lived with and/or been care giver for another person other than their husband/wife can attest that these are some of the most committed and dedicated relationships under very difficult circumstances.

Piel

[Doggygirl]

You raise such a good point. The bottom line for me lies in the concept of "benefits" AND "responsibilities." There should be room in the legal system for all of this. My only objection ever has been going for the benefits without the responsibilities.

I actually just got off the phone with my Mom. I love both of my folks dearly and now that they are both in their 70's, I try to enjoy every opportunity I have to be with them, and equally avoid thoughts of what it will be like when they are gone. Family is definitely a strong component of my life, and that also means that taking care of family is very important.

If something were to happen to my Dad, my Mom would be lost on some levels. He's always been the one to "take care of business." My Mom is a hard worker, but doesn't know squat about the importance of health insurance and stuff like that. Always my Dad's domain. If something happened to Dad and Mom needed a place to go, my home will be open. The same would be true in reverse, or if something ever happened to my brothers or their spouses. Taking care of immediate family is a value I think has been larely lost in our culture. I DO think some provisions to help people who are supporting family are important.

Just assuming that those of us who believe in that could suggest improvements to the existing system, how would that work? The most important criteria for me would be how to extend benefits (and also responsibilities) while containing costs and being fair to all? I will be first in line to write a letter to my cogressperson should a good concept come forward.

Piel, I truly look forward to your ideas!! The toughest part is figuring out a system that would accomplish the intention without creating a forum for massive abuse of a system. Unfortunate, but true in our society (IMHO).

DG

[windspirit]

Originally posted by thisthingcalledlove
Ummm...how is marriage NOT religious?

May be, but doesn't have to be. The term, as well as the idea of "marriage" doesn't belong to any religion; marriage doesn't equal religion. My parents are *married*; no church was involved in it.

Btw, did you know that in the Pope's own country, Poland, a marriage in church was legally invalid till a few years ago?

Originally posted by Mathman
About religion, politics and marriage, my favorite is Henry, the Eight of that Name to Rule England. The Pope told him he couldn't divorce or behead his wife, so he denounced popery and started the Church of England.

I was just watching Eddie Izzard and his version of how it happened.