Gay Marriage/ Gay Rights

[Jormy]

I'm combining these two topics into one, but we can split it out if it warrents that.

Surprise, I am for gay rights and gay marriage, and I think it should be called marriage because, as webgrrl said, for it to be considered equal it has to have the same name.

Personally, I think when Brittany Spears can have a 70 hr marriage and the likes of Liz Taylor can be married 9 or is it 10, times, then sanctity of marriage just flew out the window.

I was married by the Justice of the Peace in a 5 minute ceremony and I am just as married as any 3 hr long wedding with the Mass being said, it is a contract between two *winks at Senorina* people and as sush, it is discrimination to withold it from gays.

[senorina]

well I also think it should be called marriage, but...

I don't understand why people say it would be separate but equal to have civil unions - it wouldn't at all.

Separate but equal keeps people from access to the same places and facilities, which is in fact, not equal.

IF civil unions had the same rights as marriages,that would be a huge plus for gays.

It would also be a plus for all the people who are fighting gay marriage, for their fear (unfounded imo) of a big change in their culture.

Then, we could move forward, and in a few years when people see that the culture hasn't fallen to shreds, it would be so much more acceptible and maybe then gay marriage could go through without such huge fighting and division.

Even in Massachusetts, all of the polls say that if it came down to a vote (which it shouldn't I know) that the majority of people are opposed to gay marriage.

I think it would be a good common ground, and a stepping stone towards a great change.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 27, 2006 06:11 PM: Message edited by: senorina ]</font>

[onelove]

I personally think we should go the other way. The state could issue a union certificate. Both straight and gay couple would get the same certificate. Marriage at the state level is really a contract. It doesn't have to be called marriage at the state level.

Churches could then marry whomever they wanted. It takes the emotion of the marriage word out of the debate. It may be frustrating to people who think people who object should be made to get over it. I can understand feeling that way. But in the long run the legal rights will go along way to normalizing gay couples to general society.

[space4dtime]

I agree that all governmnet-sanctioned unions should just be called civil unions, and churches can marry at their discretion in a non-legally-binding kind of way.

[wimminrule]

Today, I'm sick and freaking tired of hearing how it's not a right, how it's society's perogative to tell me no just like they set speed limits, sick and tired of this backassward state I live in and am ready to move to Canada. [img]mad.gif[/img]

*phew* I feel better now.

[taragunner]

I'm not to finicky on the wording of it, as long as the 'union' give all couples equal rights afforded to all couples entering the union.