Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Madeline]

Gays can be treated equally...by allowing them to marry. My point is, creating a brand new legal relationship between persons for the purpose of substituting it for "marriage" is a disruptive, wholly unworthy "alternative" to granting every adult the same freedoms.

I support gay marriage. Anything less/other than is nothing but "separate but equal" horseshit, and cannot pass constitutional muster.

 

[DiveCon]

Gays can be treated equally...by allowing them to marry. My point is, creating a brand new legal relationship between persons for the purpose of substituting it for "marriage" is a disruptive, wholly unworthy "alternative" to granting every adult the same freedoms.

I support gay marriage. Anything less/other than is nothing but "separate but equal" horseshit, and cannot pass constitutional muster.

it wont be a "brand new" legal relationship
it will just be "re-branding" the existing one

how is it separate?

example
hetero couple wants civil union
gay couple wants civil union
they both get the same
marriage is then left to the persons belief system and has ZERO legal repercussions

 

[Madeline]

DiveCon, "marriage" affects more than just family law and its statutes and cases. It affects property law, inheritance law, etc. There is a strong preference in the law to interpret a statutory change as having some sort of effect....the consequences of the "name change" proposed by Immie are impossible to predict.

And for what, exactly? So we can deny to gays the right to refer to their relationships as "marriages"?

 

[DiveCon]

DiveCon, "marriage" affects more than just family law and its statutes and cases. It affects property law, inheritance law, etc. There is a strong preference in the law to interpret a statutory change as having some sort of effect....the consequences of the "name change" proposed by Immie are impossible to predict.

And for what, exactly? So we can deny to gays the right to refer to their relationships as "marriages"?

it doesnt matter WHAT is currently attached to "Marriage" anything LEGAL would be transferred to civil unions
and the only thing that would remain "Marriage" would be the religious ceremony
and that means what ever belief system someone has can do what ever ceremony they need to do to meet there requirements and the government would have ZERO say in it

i dont understand what is so hard to understand in this
both gay couples and straight couples would be treated EXACTLY the same by the government

 

[Madeline]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

 

[CurveLight]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

Are people so blind and naïve as to think litigators would not look for loopholes anytime someone has a dispute? This would be a wet dream for many lawyers and people are silly to think all it would require is a simple "name change." It would be a freaking mess within months and then all of the divorce laws would need amending. (How many didn't think of that?)

The fundamental mistake is claiming marriage is a "religious" institution. A porn star wearing a white wedding dress doesn't make her a virgin just like people getting married in a church doesn't make them religious.

 

[editec]

i'm sorry, but your opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight.

like it or not, the one source that does claim to speak for god is the bible, and according to the bible, homosexual acts are sinful.

on a personal note and in all seriousness, i committed adultery. i am not proud of it, but it happened. did i commit a sin, yes. would it be convenient for me to simply say, hey, god wouldn't consider adultery a sin now would he? i mean, come on, what does god really care about sex? everyone does it nowadays. it's natural.

now if you don't believe in the bible, that's great. more power to you. but if you do believe in the bible and want to claim god doesn't believe homosexual acts to be sinful, i think you've got a bit of a problem.

But Jesus never spoke about homosexuality.
And if you are in a civil union or marriage with a same sex partner, and are faithful, in my opinion I don't think God would think it was a sin. I also don't think God would like people to spread hate in his name. I believe in God, but I don't believe the bible should not be taken so literally.

jesus may have never mentioned it, but it is in both the old and new testaments. christians aren't supposed to cherry-pick the parts they like.

Why did?

Jesus certainly did.

 

[Valerie]

For nearly 40 years, our society has promoted the taking of innocent human life. Why shouldn't it promote equality in the lives of homosexuals?

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals. That blurs the line of Separation of Church and State and is not a line I care to see crossed.

Immie

That's not true.

I think you are wrong. It will come down to a "discrimination" issue. Once the SCOTUS gets the case, any church that refuses to do so will be sued for discrimination and the costs of defense will become astronomical.

Immie

No, that would also be unconstitutional.


Curvelight is correct that this notion of gays wanting to force themselves upon religious institutions is a propaganda myth.

 

[Samson]

DiveCon, "marriage" affects more than just family law and its statutes and cases. It affects property law, inheritance law, etc. There is a strong preference in the law to interpret a statutory change as having some sort of effect....the consequences of the "name change" proposed by Immie are impossible to predict.

And for what, exactly? So we can deny to gays the right to refer to their relationships as "marriages"?

I think limiting "queer marriage" to civil unions a good idea because Obama says so:

With civil unions, same-sex couples "can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick . . . they can transfer property to each other," Obama said. "If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go."

How could Obama be wrong?

 

[Valerie]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

I really don't see the Civil Union outcome as "separate but equal" providing there would be no real "separation" other than a descriptive word.

At least that way the sensitivities of the self righteous DOMA folks wouldn't be so offended and they could maintain their false sense of moral superiority by clinging to the word Marriage while their fellow citizens, who happen to be gay and who exist in our society with or without their approval, could quietly move on with their lives treated equally under civil marriage laws as provided by the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.


It really amazes me that "conservative" people can't see how they are being bamboozled into arguing against their own best interest here. Freedom and equality under the law is NOT a lifestyle endorsement it is a constitutional obligation to ALL citizens.


Gay people exist in our society. WHO is to judge committed couples of consenting adults? Do we really want the government to measure our "sins" ?

 

[CurveLight]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

 

[Samson]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

I really don't see the Civil Union outcome as "separate but equal" providing there would be no real "separation" other than a descriptive word.

At least that way the sensitivities of the self righteous DOMA folks wouldn't be so offended and they could maintain their false sense of moral superiority by clinging to the word Marriage while their fellow citizens, who happen to be gay and who exist in our society with or without their approval, could quietly move on with their lives treated equally under civil marriage laws as provided by the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.


It really amazes me that "conservative" people can't see how they are being bamboozled into arguing against their own best interest here. Freedom and equality under the law is NOT a lifestyle endorsement it is a constitutional obligation to ALL citizens.


Gay people exist in our society. WHO is to judge committed couples of consenting adults? Do we really want the government to measure our "sins" ?

"Conservative" people??

I want to do what Obama wants to do.

Is he conservative for you?

 

[Valerie]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

I really don't see the Civil Union outcome as "separate but equal" providing there would be no real "separation" other than a descriptive word.

At least that way the sensitivities of the self righteous DOMA folks wouldn't be so offended and they could maintain their false sense of moral superiority by clinging to the word Marriage while their fellow citizens, who happen to be gay and who exist in our society with or without their approval, could quietly move on with their lives treated equally under civil marriage laws as provided by the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.


It really amazes me that "conservative" people can't see how they are being bamboozled into arguing against their own best interest here. Freedom and equality under the law is NOT a lifestyle endorsement it is a constitutional obligation to ALL citizens.


Gay people exist in our society. WHO is to judge committed couples of consenting adults? Do we really want the government to measure our "sins" ?

"Conservative" people??

I want to do what Obama wants to do.

Is he conservative for you?

I'm talking about the right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign against treating their fellow citizens equally.

 

[Samson]

I really don't see the Civil Union outcome as "separate but equal" providing there would be no real "separation" other than a descriptive word.

At least that way the sensitivities of the self righteous DOMA folks wouldn't be so offended and they could maintain their false sense of moral superiority by clinging to the word Marriage while their fellow citizens, who happen to be gay and who exist in our society with or without their approval, could quietly move on with their lives treated equally under civil marriage laws as provided by the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.


It really amazes me that "conservative" people can't see how they are being bamboozled into arguing against their own best interest here. Freedom and equality under the law is NOT a lifestyle endorsement it is a constitutional obligation to ALL citizens.


Gay people exist in our society. WHO is to judge committed couples of consenting adults? Do we really want the government to measure our "sins" ?

"Conservative" people??

I want to do what Obama wants to do.

Is he conservative for you?

I'm talking about the right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign against treating their fellow citizens equally.

But, Obama agrees with the "Civil Union outcome as 'separate but equal'"

Do you consider him conservative or not?

 

[Valerie]

"Conservative" people??

I want to do what Obama wants to do.

Is he conservative for you?

I'm talking about the right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign against treating their fellow citizens equally.

But, Obama agrees with the "Civil Union outcome as 'separate but equal'"

Do you consider him conservative or not?

Not.


I think you misunderstood my post...

 

[Samson]

I'm talking about the right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign against treating their fellow citizens equally.

But, Obama agrees with the "Civil Union outcome as 'separate but equal'"

Do you consider him conservative or not?

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

 

[Valerie]

I want to do what Obama wants to do.

Me too.

August 5th, 2010

Obama always considered Proposition 8 “mean-spirited” and opposed it, but he does not support same-sex marriage generally.

“The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He’s supports civil unions, and that’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed,” Axelrod argued.

...

The White House issued a tepid statement yesterday after the decision was announced, stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”


Obama On Gay Marriage | Obama's Position on Same Sex Marriages | David Axelrod | Mediaite

 

[Valerie]

But, Obama agrees with the "Civil Union outcome as 'separate but equal'"

Do you consider him conservative or not?

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

I don't see The President making any moral judgments on the lifestyles of citizens the way the religious activists argue against gays even being entitled to equality at all. The president hasn't called fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against.

 

[Samson]

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

I don't see The President making any moral judgments on the lifestyles of citizens the way the religious folks argue against gays even being entitled to equality at all. The president hasn't called fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against.

"weave and dodge"

Why do you think he only supports civil unions for gays?

The only difference between Obama and others is that you haven't HEARD HIM CALL "fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against."

But his Actions speak louder than words.......he clearly considers queers as deviant as does society.

 

[Valerie]

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

I don't see The President making any moral judgments on the lifestyles of citizens the way the religious folks argue against gays even being entitled to equality at all. The president hasn't called fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against.

"weave and dodge"

Why do you think he only supports civil unions for gays?

The only difference between Obama and others is that you haven't HEARD HIM CALL "fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against."

But his Actions speak louder than words.......he clearly considers queers as deviant as does society.

I'm not weaving and dodging anything..I'm telling you what I think. And I am not an Obama supporter, if that's what you think.

Again, I think you misunderstand my posts. As I said, I do not see the Civil Union outcome as "separate but equal" providing the only "separation" is a descriptive word.

I agree with Obama that the religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California are mean spirited, divisive and discriminatory.