We'll celebrate our first anniversary next month if those gays wanting to marry don't ruin it!

[liberalhistorian]

Our first wedding anniversary is next month and I'm afraid we won't be able to celebrate it if those gay marriage issues on state ballots pass and gays are allowed to marry. I mean, really. Wanting to marry the partner they love and are committed to and finally be able to receive the hundreds of tangible and intangible legal, financial, tax, economic, federal and social benefits of marriage! Just who do they think they are, anyway, real Americans? Don't they know how that's going to affect my marriage, REAL red-blooded American marriage? If they want those benefits, they can just go into their "gay changing booth" and become a real American so they can marry a real American!

So what if so many of them are kept from their partner's side in a medical or emergency situation while family members the partner may not have even seen for years suddenly take control? So what if one partner is financially and legally left out in the cold in that case even if they've been together for an incredibly long time? So what if they can't adopt children because they're not considered a "real" American family? Why is that my marriage's problem? Why should my marriage be thrown into danger because of it?

Next month my husband and I will celebrate a wonderful, happy first year of marriage. We will remember experiencing the wonderful thrill of being able to look into each other's eyes, eyes full of love and care and happiness, while exchanging rings and vows and lighting the unity candle. And gays want to ruin that by being able to experience it with their own loving partners????

Look, I could go on and on about what a danger this is, but I'm feeling lazy today. So all you'll have to do is to pull up and dust off some of the old arguments against interracial marriage, exchange "gay" for "race" and you're all set!!!! It'll work all the same just fine!

Sheesh, gays wanting to marry. What's next, women wanting full and equal rights? Non-christians wanting to be considered "real" Americans, too?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[IndianaJones]

1. civil unions are the answer. separate but equal! nt.

[liberalhistorian]

4. Hey, if "separate but equal" it was good enough for

blacks before Brown vs. Board of Education stepped in and ruined things, then it should be good enough for gays!!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[av8rdave]

2. I too share your fear

If gay marriage is allowed, that must mean that my marriage (as well as all "traditional" marriges) will immediately fail. What's to become of us then? Will we all become gay, or will we be straights unable to marry, treated as societal outcasts, with fewer rights than our gay brethren?

OMG the sky is falling! Marriage is under attack!

:sarcasm:

How do the wingnut idiots come up with this kind of logic with a straight face (no pun intended)?

[liberalhistorian]

3. Excellent question!

I think the answer is that they know it's stupid and wrong, but that ignorant fearmongering will often work, at least temporarily, so that's what they do.

[Jamastiene]

5. I was furious when I saw the headline, but the more anti-gay marriage

arguments you mentioned, the more obvious it became just how ridiculous the right wingnuts are really being.

Thank you for mocking them. It made my day. Recommended.

[plaintiff]

6. That's terrific but you know, it's a shame the sarcasm thingy is needed for some people.

:shrug:

on edit...I mean some people not likely DUers!
;-)

[liberalhistorian]

9. LOL!

Yes, some people do take things a bit too literally. Fortunately, that's not usually the case at DU.

[wvbygod]

7. Does CA really deny visitation and adoption with civil unions?

I don't understand why civil unions were ever accepted if they did not include these at
the bare minimum. I agree marriage is the only fair answer, but what was gained by civil unions?

[liberalhistorian]

8. Personally, I think that civil unions

were used as an appeasement measure to try and keep "those people" happy, and make it look like the government sympathized with them and it also made it seem like they were doing something when they really weren't. It's just a "hold the line" measure, better than nothing but still not really meaning much. Civil unions don't begin to convey the same legal, financial, tax, economic, social and governmental benefits that marriage does. Only full marriage equality will really do the trick. And it needs to happen like yesterday.

I was single until age 42 last year. I'd known in the abstract just how many tangible and intangible benefits marriage conveys, as I'm a paralegal and I'd been a member of the American Association of Single Adults (which welcomes gays and gay couples, btw, www.unmarriedamerica.com). But it wasn't until I was actually married that I immediately began to really see and experience the difference. And it struck me just how unfair that was for so many benefits to be determined by marital status and that the government decided which relationships would receive such benefits and which wouldn't, based solely on what IT considered t be "legitimate" relationships. That is just plain wrong.

[foxfeet]

10. My partner of 23 years and I will do our best

not to fuck up your big day. He'll probably be at work and I'll probably be doing laundry and picking up dog poop. I hope none of that interferes with your happiness. Congratulations! :applause:

[plaintiff]

11. That sounds just like what our day will be too! 27 years last July

:D

[liberalhistorian]

13. Hey, hey,

wait a minute, WE'RE gonna be doing laundry then! Sheesh, you unreal American couples just take EVERYTHING from us, don't you?!

:sarcasm: :evilgrin:

[donco6]

12. I long for the day when only gay marriages will be "real".

It's number 8 on the Gay agenda. We already have 1-7.



Oh, and . . . :sarcasm: for those who can't tell.