And people continually ask "Why do you insist on *Marriage*?"

[NMMNG]

Here's why. Civil unions fall short of marriage, state discovers

New Jersey's 8-month-old civil union law has failed to live up to its promise of giving same-sex couples all the protections of marriage by another name, the state's top official for enforcing civil rights said yesterday.

<snip>

"It is not working as effectively as if the word 'marriage' were used," Vespa-Papaleo said. "That could be controversial. I could lose my job for saying that."

<snip>

"We even had testimony that it will not necessarily improve over time. That's been the experience in Vermont, which has had civil unions for 7 1/2 years," Vespa-Papaleo said.


<snip>

The gay advocacy group Garden State Equality has received 369 complaints of civil unions being dishonored, according to its chairman, Steven Goldstein, who is also vice chairman of the Civil Union Review Commission.

<snip>

Separate but Equal never was, and never will be. Period. Only Marriage is Marriage.

[WindRavenX]

1. Exactly.

I would also add that it is not the job of the government to dictate what a marriage constitutes, as that is left to religious dogma, but only to *recognize* marriage. There are tons of religious orders that recognize, validate, and celebrate a variety of commitments, and all should be granted equal standing in the eyes of the law.

For some reason, people seem to think that gay marriage means the government will *force* all religious orders to perform gay marriages.

[NMMNG]

6. That's a blatant lie perpetrated by the RRR

in order to scare people, and berate lawmakers into refusing to grant equal rights to same-sex couples in order to not lose votes. No church has ever been forced to marry couples of other faiths, or of no faith, or anyone for that matter. So why would they be forced to marry gay couples?

[WindRavenX]

8. because if two men can marry each other...

...then people will be able to marry their turtles! :crazy:

Or something like that.

Who knows...I find it hilarious that two people can fucking hate one another, but can marry because they're straight. But it's a-ok that two men who love each other can't marry.

O what a world!

[NMMNG]

13. Exactly

I could marry a serial killer who has been imprisoned for life, but in 49 states I'm not allowed to marry someone I actually love. Because of what some old book says.

[truth2power]

14. I know you're aware of this, but....

just to reiterate, for the lurking freepers...

Marriage is a contract. Animals can't enter into contracts. :P

[JerseygirlCT]

40. The same reason the ERA was going to force us all to use

unisex toilets.

IOW, none at all.

Basically, those against marriage rights have absolutely nothing to go on, in a legal sense. So they fall back on lies and scare tactics. It's all they've got.

[NMMNG]

43. Now it's those Transgenders that are going to do it

They even have a law in CA that's going to force little school children to go to the bathroom together!!! (The reality is that the law doesn't even mention bathrooms, let alone mandate "unisex" bathrooms. It's just more RW fearmongering/lies.)

[JerseygirlCT]

44. What's maybe more astounding isn't that people come up with

this crap. As I said, they have no logical, legally supportable responses. But that so many people are so ready to believe what they spew!

Laziness? Bigotry? Ignorance? All of the above?

I'm not sure.

[NMMNG]

45. I vote for "all of the above"

And it's truly sad.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. It's funny

But for a straight married middle-aged (oh, it pains me to say that!) woman, this is one of those issues I feel very strongly about.

I can remember an argument more than 20 years ago with a dear one. I obviously touched a deep chord when I said that marriage should be available to gay folk, too. This usually quite sensible and liberal person just stammered, and said it felt like that lessened his marriage... all the same things you still hear.

He's come around, and it may be the only argument he'll admit I was absolutely right on. But I remember it because it shows me how deeply ingrained that sort of sub-conscious reaction is. There's lots of work still to be done.

But I think the best work is being done quietly, in offices and churches and neighborhoods, where people are realizing that their friends and family and neighbors are gay, and <shock!> are just folks, living and working and doing the same mundane stuff the rest of us do. So long as people can see gay people as the mysterious "other", there's room to write off their rights. When they become instead Jane and John and Fred down the street, it's a whole different story.

[truth2power]

11. It's not that difficult. Even Liberal politicians don't seem able to frame it..

I wonder why?...

All that's required for a marriage to be valid is:

1. A license
2. Ceremony performed by an authorized person (judge, clergy or other official so designated).
3. Witnesses
4. Waiting period (different in different states)
5. Record the license.

Gays should be permitted to obtain a marriage license. This is a civil act and cannot be construed to be stepping on anyone's religious values. End of story.

It would then be up to the parties to present themselves before a judge (a civil marriage) or a clergy person of their choosing. I think there are a number of denominations which have no problem with marrying gays; UUs come to mind. Also some Episcopalians. Some Presbyterians etc.

I would never support a law that forced clergy of all denominations to marry gays. That would be up to each denomination as it sees fit.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Yes, exactly

Because the benefits of marriage in the legal (not sacremental or religious) sense are what come from the legal act.

Religions are and should remain free to determine the standards they will use to marry people. I completely agree with that.

I do know clergy though who would very much like to be out of the official marrying business and allow that to be a completely civil, contractual thing. They would then happily bless those already married in the eyes of the law who met their own church's standards for that.

[truth2power]

51. That's why the "sanctity of marriage" thing

is just so much BS. Marriage is, first of all, a civil contract. If two people wish to "sanctify" their committment to this contract by celebrating with a church service, it's a wonderful thing to do, IMO.

If I feel I have a sacred committment to my spouse, blessed by the church, I don't see how it would be any less so because gays are allowed to marry.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. You don't feel that way

Because, frankly, it wouldn't!

[TahitiNut]

2. We can hate anyone we want to hate ...

... but we're only allowed to love those on the "approved" list. The largest enterprise formed to kill human beings says "Don't ask; Don't tell" and we comply.

If that ain't fucked up, I don't know what is. :shrug:

[NMDemDist2]

3. K&R for civil rights for ALL citizens n/t

[AlCzervik]

4. I am never going to be able to understand why people are against gay people getting married.

i've heard the arguments and i do not believe them. I always hear the "Marriage is one of the cornerstone of society" so why would anyone want to deny gay people the right to shore up that cornerstone?

[Solon]

5. I don't understand it either...

Who people decide to shack up with is not my business, and if these couples want to have their marriages recognized by the government, more power to them. It simply puzzles me why anyone would be against that.

[NMMNG]

7. Because we're going to destroy "traditional marriage"

How, I don't know. They never seem to be able to explain it. :shrug:

[AlCzervik]

9. what they should talk about is the real things that destroy marriage.

Substance abuse, Adultery, verbal/physical abuse, financial woes, catastrophic illness, death of a child and so on.

I guess those things don't count.

What i find the most disturbing is the notion of amending the Constitution to deny people rights.

[NMMNG]

17. Why do that

when preaching against Teh Gays brings in so much more money? :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Actually, what they should talk about is that the personal lives of ADULTS aren't the state's bizniz

If heteros such as myself can get a marriage license from the state, so should two gay or lesbian people be able to. Period.

Yeah, people get divorced- for all kinds of reasons. Excuse me, but I'd rather not have the state saying that ANYONE in a shitty marriage- be they hetero or gay- "ought" to stay together when it's plainly clear they're better off apart.

What contributes to bad marriages? For one, idiotic puritannical attitudes towards sex and the bullshit "abstinence only" education we're spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on, which hector kids to marry the first person they screw, or vice versa. (Bad idea, in many cases)

The bottom line is, even IF gay people getting married could magically work some kind of hoo-doo voo-doo on hetero marriages (a proposition so ridiculous I would think even the spooky action at a distance, what the bleep is ramtha's secret, quantum physics bastardization crew on DU would reject it out of hand) that wouldn't change the basic, bedrock fact that GLBT citizens should have the exact same RIGHT to get married to their significant others as everyone else. Equality and freedom aren't dependent on how much they bother other people- they should be predicated upon the fact that this is simple fairness and it is well fucking overdue.

[LeftyMom]

60. Straight people are doing a bang-up job of that, considering the divorce rate.

We should ban straight marriage immediately.

[JackBeck]

10. What has become rather annoying

is having to register our relationship any time we move, just to get even the most basic rights.

We have a Domestic Partnership in New York City. Got married in San Francisco. Registered as DOmestic Partners after our move to New Jersey. And now we have the opportunity to register our relationship as a Civil Union. And Corzine has said he will push for marriage equality in 2009.

And these licenses are not free, so we're paying each time we apply for equal rights.

[NMMNG]

27. The Gay Tax

Nice to pay more for fewer rights, isn't it?

[hfojvt]

12. that's not really an unbiased study

"Supporters of gay marriage dominated the hearings."

So it appears that supporters of gay marriage still support gay marriage.

This was also said:

"Vespa-Papaleo said civil unions are a "magnificent advance," "

I guess a half full glass sucks too, even in the month of Thanksgiving.

As a single guy I can only wish I had somebody who loves me living with me that the state was not allowing me to marry.

[NMMNG]

15. I beg your pardon?

"Supporters of gay marriage dominated the hearings."

So it appears that supporters of gay marriage still support gay marriage.

Um, yes. It appears that supporters of gay marriage still support gay marriage. But gay marriage is still non-existent in 49 states. You also failed to note this portion of the article:

Goldstein said opponents of gay marriage were largely absent from the hearings "because they don't have real-life stories to back up the argument that allowing gay marriage would hurt the institution."

Hmmmm. Very interesting point. So they could have been there but they had nothing of value to offer.

"Vespa-Papaleo said civil unions are a "magnificent advance,"

I guess a half full glass sucks too, even in the month of Thanksgiving.


So you're saying we should be thankful for the crumbs we're thrown from the table of the straight people and stop complaining?





As a single guy I can only wish I had somebody who loves me living with me that the state was not allowing me to marry.


With all due respect, your status as a single person has nothing to do with denying equal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

[mitchtv]

18. Nice

:thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

28. civil unions still do not exist in how many states?

You've got your troubles and complaints and I have got mine.

Lack of equal rights is a problem, for some people. What was the number 1100 rights that involve marriage? Civil unions provide how many of those rights? What percentage? 60%, 80%, 94%, or, like you seem to imply, less than 15%?

I have never opposed gay marriage. In my view, to do so would be to endorse gay promiscuity and I think marriage is better than promiscuity. I still think that civil unions can be a way to acheive a huge victory without causing a backlash from the sleeping giant of endemic homophobia.
We failed by a substantial margin in Kansas to stop an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

[NMMNG]

30. That would be 41

You've got your troubles and complaints and I have got mine.

So again you're equating not having a partner (which could change at any time, and which you are not forbidden from having) with being legally forbidden from marrying the person one loves?


What was the number 1100 rights that involve marriage? Civil unions provide how many of those rights? What percentage? 60%, 80%, 94%, or, like you seem to imply, less than 15%?


About 1049 rights at last count. And no matter how well-intentioned, Civil Unions/Domestic partnerships are not equal, because they are not recognized across the state, let alone across the country, as being equivalent to Marriage. There are always corporations, agencies, institutions and individuals that will refuse to recognize a CU/DP because it is not called "Marriage". Only Marriage provides the same rights and protections of Marriage.




I have never opposed gay marriage. In my view, to do so would be to endorse gay promiscuity and I think marriage is better than promiscuity.

Do you even realize how offensive that statement is?



I still think that civil unions can be a way to achieve a huge victory without causing a backlash from the sleeping giant of endemic homophobia.

The giant of homophobia is not sleeping. It is very much awake, active and working to cause great harm. That doesn't mean we should allow the homophobes to dictate our lives, or keep from us what is rightfully ours.

And would you have considered the Colored Only water fountain a "huge victory" some 50 years or so ago?

[sniffa]

32. oh come now buffy

not getting Laid is the same thing.

[NMMNG]

42. Of course

So nobody in America should be able to get married because my sister isn't even dating. That's how it goes, right?

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Are you serious?

I have never opposed gay marriage. In my view, to do so would be to endorse gay promiscuity

What makes you think gays are any more promiscuous than straights? The destruction of the family in this country is a direct result of heterosexual marriage and divorce. What do you say to those married folks who can't keep their pants on?

[hfojvt]

61. I seriously do not think that was implied either

It was a really windy day in Kansas today. If I complain about trying to bike in this wind, does this imply that I think Kansas is windier than Chicago, Oklahoma, South Dakota, or Wyoming?

It just seems to me that the alternative to marriages or civil unions are less permanent relationships.

[LostinVA]

56. "Sleeping giant of endemic homophobia?" In New Jersey?

Nearly 70% of the state approves of FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY. That's right. The majority of the state believes that gay civil unions should be changed to marriage.

New Jersey is NOT Kansas.

As for the rest of your post, offensive in the extreme.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. So because you're single, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry?

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

25. Is that what I said? Or implied?

Just giving my perspective, what I think is a bigger picture. A couple in a civil union seems like they are better off than me. Fair is fair, if a friend of mine is complaining because the zoning board won't let him add a second garage, I will remind him that that does not sound like a huge problem to somebody who cannot even afford a car.

[LostinVA]

57. So your perspective is, since you are single, you don't care about equality?

Wow. Unreal.

And, while you cannot afford a car, no one is legally keeping you from having a car. Owning a car is a privilege, not a right. Marriage is a right denied to same-sex couples.

I hope you're just being clueless and that you're really not a homophobe.

[mondo joe]

67. Your bitterness about being single doesn't make for an unbiased post either. NT

[Solly Mack]

16. By depriving people of their rights, a privileged class is created

whose members seek special rights based on manufactured exclusionary standards in hopes of setting themselves apart from - and above - other people in order to feel better about themselves.

It's the providence of the cowardly, petty, and insecure. People who want so much to be anything but what they are - average - normal - the same.

Because being the same means being just like everyone else and then their wants and needs - their very life - doesn't set them apart from the crowd.

There's nothing unique or special about their love - their marriage - their beliefs - their ideas...and if they can't be special then all the bad that can and does happen to other people can happen to them as well.

Fear dominates their very existence and they seek to control others because they can't control the world and what may happen to them.

While such people are to be pitied, it should never be forgetten the danger they pose to others.

When people say be satisfied with civil unions, those people are still holding fast to their standards of exclusive rights - of special rights.

It's effectively saying *WE* have marriage - and *YOU*, because you are different and therefore not like us, have something else...something different..something not special...something less

It's saying you're less than we are so this is all you can have

*WE* take ownership of a word...but it's not just a word, is it?..It's an entire concept upon which the society we live in places great value.

So when you deny people marriage, you aren't just denying them a word - you're denying them everything that comes with that word...that concept.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. How about "Why do you think it's any of YOUR business if two gay people want to get MARRIED?"

:shrug:

I agree. If little pinheaded fundies get their shorts in a bunch at the thought of GLBT folks getting "married", too bad.

Don't like Gay Marriage? Don't have one.

I'm sick of self-righteous control freaks who spend all their time saying "Blank offends me. I find Blank bothersome, irritating, immoral, and I need to rail against it and try to stamp it out. Nevermind that the folks engaged in or participating in Blank are consenting adults whom I've never met, I am perfectly well situated to decide for those consenting adults that they should not have anything to do with Blank"

Fill in the blank, where blank is a consenting adult behavior that does not directly harm or interfere with the lives or freedoms of others.

[NMMNG]

23. Control freaks, the lot of them.

They want to mold society into what they think is God's image of what it should be. And woe to anybody who doesn't fit.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. And only Kucinich has the moral center to stand up and say it, "Gay marriage

is fine."

The rest are all worried about supporting human rights, cause they might look bad to some homophobic asshole.

[NMMNG]

24. Indeed

And pandering to the bigots is still more important than standing up for human rights.

[AuntPatsy]

26. Agree and its way past time we realize just how undemocratic it is to deny

that all American citizens do not have the same rights.

[Evoman]

29. Not only that, but that "marriage is a religious thing" is full of fucking shit.

When people of opposite sex get married outside of a church, with a JP, they still call it marriage. "Civil union" is bullsht. People who are against gay marriage are full of fucking shit and their marriage licenses should be taken and burned, and the only reason we should give them for it is that they are douchebags.

*catches breath*

[NMMNG]

31. Indeed

Both my mother and my father were married three times each. None of those marriages were done in a church or with the aid of a clergy person, yet each time they've been married. So all of that nonsense about marriage being a "religious" institution is all hogwash.

[Withywindle]

36. Thank you!

My atheist parents got married in their hippie jeans at a courthouse. Nowhere near a church. Never had me baptized. They only ever go for other people's weddings and funerals, and only if they really have to.

They're married, though. Very married. No doubt about that. It's all official. 39 years and counting. They'd find the idea that there's something inherently religious about marriage offensive (especially my dad, he's pretty hardline).

I've never heard a single argument against marriage equality that didn't boil down to either "I find it icky" or "God said it's icky" or both. And neither of those "reasons" should be anywhere near any LEGAL, CIVIL right.

[and-justice-for-all]

33. I concur...

I find that the option to be MARRIED should be made by the 2 people involved and not reich-wing nazis whose Ideology enforcement should be deemed a terrorist group.

Religious fascism is Religious fascism no matter where it is at, be it Amerikastan or the Middle East.

[NMMNG]

35. Thank you

Religious fascism is Religious fascism no matter where it is at, be it Amerikastan or the Middle East.

I agree, but unfortunately some can't see the difference.

[TZ]

34. Oh you troublesome folks....

Next thing you know you will be citing things like all people are created equal and stuff like you know, being gay doesn't mean you don't have the exact seem feelings and desires as heterosexuals.
Honestly, this really aggravates me that people don't seem to understand that gays don't feel any differently about things than heteros. I remember a fundie coworker COMPLAINING about our company offering domestic benefits to gay couples. Why the fuck should he care about what the company chose to pay for? It didn't cost him anything? Why can't people just mind their own fucking business and ignore what others chose to do?
As for this marriage is a relgious thing bullshit....My older sister went on line and got herself legally recognized as a minister of the Universal Church and married my younger sister. Yeah, thats really relgious.
The objections to gay marriage are stupid stupid stupid....

[NMMNG]

37. But what about the children?

:P

[TZ]

38. Me? Care about children?

After all, I advocate "poisoning" the younguns on a regular basis......:sarcasm: (in case some don't realize I am joking)
:rofl:

[NMMNG]

39. That's because you're just a shill for Big Pharma

:P

[greeneyedboy]

41. i say, time for another lawsuit & maybe this time the Jersey court will get it right.

fingers crossed for good news in California within the next 12 months, too.

[JackBeck]

48. Corzine has vowed to pursue full marriage equality after the election.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Prophet 451]

49. It works here

I'm British. Here, we have a system where same-sex union is called "domestic partnership" but is, in all legal respects, identical (and even processed on the same paperwork). Here, it works so it occurs to me that if it fails to work in the States, it's largely because people don't want it to work. They didn't want same-sex marriage in the first place so they're going to sieze on anything they can to ensure they aren't equal, even if it's just a different term. Here, where virtually no straight person gave a toss if gay marriage was legalised, we haven't had the same problems.

[NMMNG]

50. That's likely part of the problem

Historically people have done everything they can to keep any form of marriage away from gay people. Then they chastise gay people because they don't do like the straight people do and commit to one another forever. They conveniently forget to mention that it's because of their interference that gay people can't do so (in the legal sense--gay people do commit to one another without the legal "marriage" all the time).

And now that Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are springing up, the same bigots are trying to avoid recognizing them because they aren't called "Marriage". And again the bigots fail to recognize that it is because of them that these partnerships are not called Marriage.

So the bigots prevent us from getting what we rightfully deserve, then penalize us because we don't have what we rightfully deserve.

[LostinVA]

58. Actually, most people in NJ support gay marriage

It doesn't work because some corporations are trying to get out of giving people medical benefits.

[NMMNG]

62. Right

Because NJ doesn't have Marriage, despite the widespread support for it. They have Civil Unions.

[LibertyLover]

52. If I remember correctly, in certain European countries

in order to be legally married, you must be married in a civil ceremony first, with a religious ceremony, if you choose, afterwards. It is the civil ceremony that confers legality. It has long been my belief that is what we should have here - the legal ceremony being a civil one. Religious ceremonies could follow, or not, at the choice of the couple. If we could move the concept of what makes a marriage legal from being the religious ceremony to it being a civil ceremony, I think it would be easier for same sex couples to be married. As someone upthread remarked - marriage is a contract, to not let certain individuals enter into a contract is discrimination, pure and simple.

And while I'm thinking about it, could someone explain to me why letting my two lesbian friends marry legally demeans and degrades my marriage to my husband? I have never been able to understand why the right-wing religious wackos keep repeating that mantra over and over again.

[NMMNG]

63. They can never explain it

And while I'm thinking about it, could someone explain to me why letting my two lesbian friends marry legally demeans and degrades my marriage to my husband? I have never been able to understand why the right-wing religious wackos keep repeating that mantra over and over again.


They just seem to think if they repeat it over and over again it will be a fact. :crazy:

[LibertyLover]

65. Ahh, thank you. I thought that it was some sort

of impeccable logic like that. Where did those people learn to state a thesis and back it up with facts? You know - the accepted way of advancing an argument.

[Prophet 451]

66. Here, it doesn't have to be in that order

We have the same concept (the civil ceremony confers the legal benefits) but you can do them in any order. I know many people do the civil part but not the religious and at least one couple who did the religious part but not the legal.

[Midlodemocrat]

54. When are you 'uppity gays' going to get over it?

I mean, c'mon.


:sarcasm:

Great post, Buffy.

[Orsino]

55. Why do we Dems keep selling out our GLBT brothers and sisters? n/t

[NMMNG]

64. Because it's politically expedient

:shrug: