boredwell—Here here! Great post!

I guess I was afraid that, when Yawwwn said, he “agreed with KDelphi…” and , then, pretty much showed that he did not read my entire post, I was afraid I had been misunderstood.

It wouldnt have been the first time! lol

There is even a march here in Dayton! Congrats, Dayton! I’d be there if my RA wasnt killing me in this rain…yes it is sufferage for all…when one is oppressed, we all are.

I came out in 1969, right after Stonewall, the seminal historical springboard for what we now call “gay rights.” There was an almost childlike gleefulness during those first years of this civil rights movement. “Gay” slipped out of the closet and into the vernacular. And from this watershed flowed the feminist movement, lesbian rights, recognition for bisexuals and transexuals and now, as we’ve matured, understanding for intersex people. Indeed, post Christine Jorgenson, Betty Friedan, Sisters of Bilitis, we have come to have more understanding that human sexuality can not be so easily niched; that in its variety it remains universal. The dominant culture’s interpretation of all these “changes” has been reactionary: ranging in degrees of homophobia from criminally murderous to sanctimonious moral intolerance to shoulder-shrugging acquiescence. Yet, I posit, gay and all its permutations, has entered the social discourse and I think for the better not the worst. It’s not quite the whammy, doesn’t pack quite the whallop as it did in the not too distant past. Politicians now openly court the “gay vote.” McCain’s chief-of staff is a gay man. Entertainers have come out without harming their careers. That’s progress, isn’t it? Sure, gay and non-gay alike, we ALL have a long way toward equality; we ALL must remain vigilant in protecting our rights. Equality is never static as we have discovered with Prop 8. We know that equality is arbitrary, it can be given or taken away depending on the ebb and flow of society’s consensual wherewithall. However, today we talk about these vissitudes, vehemently protest against them and, in the process, in the tradition of all reformers, we reeducate the national forum. The passage of Prop 8, now held in abeyance pending a high court ruling as to its constitutionality, gives all like-minded equal rights advocates time to reorganize and present the platform for what it truly is: universal sufferage; that rights are inalienable rather than self-aggrandizing. This is the silver lining, the continuum in the fight to curtail might. We’re a democracy. We are beneficiaries of ALL its implicit rights, rights that can neither be given nor taken away. We shall overcome.

KDelphi, I think what you said was fine, and understandable. I thought it was amusing when you talked about the boring straight weddings in your first post.

Maybe I am misreading the replies. Let me just say it.

I fully support gays right to marriage and all of the benefits (and otherwise) that go with it.

To those who voted against it it—you cannot build happiness on other peoples’ misery.YOu cannot free yourselves by imprisoning others.

I wish that more people of this country woudl try to think about the rights of people who are not exactly like themselves. I was very despondent to hear that Prop 8 had passed.So were many of my gay friends. Not because they all want to get married. But, because of the signal it sends. It’s cruel.

It is pareticularly disturbing among peope who are supposed to be more “progressive”.

Sorry, no.  Us young gays and lesbians feel very passionately about gay marriage as a political issue whether we care for it for ourselves or not.  It is no ones business whether we “hookup” or not, and that is not a compass to our political ideals. Marriage is a civil right, and it is a cultural universal, poor, wealthy, or not. 

The list scared gave us is a clue to the many financial and practical benefits that marriage brings, and which can be of great benefit to poor couples.

I hope that no one misinterpreted my meaning. I have NO problem with gay marriage , straight marriage, any marriage—well, minors/multiptles like the LDS is pretty sick

I think that gays should be allowed to marry..and I have no real idea as to why it passed.

I can tell folks what it did in Ohio—it got Dubya elected in 2004 (conservatives showed up to vote for teh “Defense of Marriage Act”, and, stuck around to vote for W). The first “case” brought before OHio courts, was a man who had lived with his “wife” for 15 yrs. They had 3 kids. He had beaten her within an inch of her life. They charged him with domestic violence which is a felony. His attorney brought up the “marriage is between one man and one woman” amendment, and , she got off with a misdeamenor, because her name was not on the deed to the house, and , she was not legally his wife..

He got 6 mos. She wil be disabled for life.I cant even think what her kids will live through.

The law of unintended consequences. I dont know how the Calif. law read. But, in oHio, living with anyone other than your spouse (in a “spousal way”) is now ILLEGAL!

As a heterosexual, I’ve really just got 2 questions to ask all of the pent-up, frustrated people that have sooooo many issues with “gay marriage”:

(1)Will you be in the wedding?

(2)Will you be in the bedroom?

I find it utterly stupid, with all of the issues facing this nation and this world, that people should focus sooooooo intently on someone elses life, privacy, and business!  Frankly, I think if the Lord really wanted you to condemn others for Spirit those things that are an “abomination” to Spirit - wouldn’t your name be “Jesus, Krishna, Muhamed(PBUH), Budda, Yawa, ad infinitum?

Speaking of which whatever happened to that saying that goes “whomever amongst you is without SIN, cast that first stone”!!!!!!

It all comes down to this…

Some of the more than one thousand rights, benefits and responsibilities that accompany a civil marriage license include:

The right to visit a spouse in the hospital
The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse
The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse
Access to family courts for dissolution of relationships
Death benefits for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers
Mutual responsibility for debts
Joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs
Ability to sponsor a spouse from another country for a green card
Community property ownership protections
Child custody, visitation, and duties of financial support to children
Eligibility for health benefits (without taxation) and COBRA benefits through an employer
Ability to take leave to care for a sick spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act
Right to inherit a spouse’s pension
Entitlement to inherit social security and disability benefits upon the death of a spouse
Ability to inherit jointly owned property without incurring tax penalties
Right to file joint income taxes
Ability to put a spouse on the deed to a home without incurring tax penalties
Access to “family memberships”
Domestic violence protections
Immunity from testifying against a spouse
Right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse

How we can deny these things from people in a committed relationship together?  I’ll be at City Hall in Baltimore tomorrow!

While I really do not understand this obssession with marriage (Been there, done that), it seems that it does mean alot to alot of people. There is simply no reason in the world why two adults, of whatever sex, color or creed, should not be able to decide such a thing for themselves.

I simply do not understand the “straight obssession” about how “gays getting married will affect their marriages”. It wont.

I think that people that keep doing it are crazy—-but, at times, even my partner of many years brings it up. It would be nice to go to a different kind of wedding. I am so sick of my family’s and girlfriend’s 3rd, 4th and 5th white weddings I could scream. I was so bored by my sister’s 6 yrs ago that I THINK she may be married now! Because, I said, “If you are going to have a big wedding, where you want me to read something again? Dont tell me until its over.”

Uto. Could be.

I understand what Sullivan is saying.There is one thing—I do not think you can expect the unduly “religious” to accept anything that doesnt look like them in their “houses of worship”. It should be a legal matter, and, up to the parishoners of the church where the people want to marry. Or the boat. Ot the house.