Marriage Equality Comes to Wisconsin

As the states agree to the legality of gay marriage.....again, the opponents remind me of that children's book's antagonist-

 

Yes- gay couples you don't believe should have equality of marriage with heterosexual couples

You are saying that gay couples should not be allowed to be married, like heterosexual couples are- which is discrimination..

And that results in thousands of children in gay households being raised without the protection of marriage.

Which is what you profess to be trying to prevent happening to children birthed accidentally by heterosexuals.

Which results in the children of homosexual parents being discriminated against also.
Last edited by SFJEFF; Yesterday at 09:55 AM.

 

Nope, I am saying any couple other than a couple made up of a man and woman in a heterosexual relationship should be excluded. Platonic couples of any sex, closely related couples of any sex and any couple of the same sex. Their sexuality is irrelevant, but YOU and the government need sexuality to be THE reason they are excluded so you must pretend that is the reason.

 

Regardless of your intent- or the State's intent- the result is discrimination against same gender couples- which includes homosexual couples.

 

It quiet around here today. All the bigots must be in DC for NOM march. I hope they bring us a souvenir LOL

 

I heard the march was a rousing success. They got almost two thousand people!

 

Wisconsin back in the news !!

 

Tweets From Reporters And Marriage Supporters Offer Glimpse Into Today's 7th Circuit Arguments
This morning the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants in same-sex marriage cases from Wisconsin and Indiana. Arguments have concluded -- here's a preliminary glimpse in to what happened in court, via tweets from reporters and marriage equality advocates.

Overall, it looks promising for same-sex marriage supporters. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...pse_of_what_happened_at_the_7th_circuit_today

 

If same sex couples what the same legal and political rights as heterosexual couples, sanction their union as a "Civil Union". Marriage (Holy Matrimony) should be preserved as being between a man and a woman.

 

Why call anything but what it is?

BTW- we tried that before. Doesn't work.

 

Holy Matrimony? Seriously??

You mean we atheists cant be married because it's not "holy" to us.

I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

 

Marriage (Matrimony) should be preserved as being between a man and a woman. Matrimony, latin root of the word MATER, MOTHER. Only a woman becomes a mother and only a man causes her to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

To help the gays feel better about being gay.

 

He should have pointed out that the state has no marriage law that as much as even mention "gay couples" or even a reference to sexual orientation, let alone deny "rights to gay couples". The same strawman used in court after court.

 

Oh Christ! Your back?

 

What would help you feel better about being what ever it is that you are?

 

Matrimony is a religious institution with no legal standing. Marriage is a legal institution, which includes same sex couples. Procreation is entirely irrelevant.

So you keep saying. Meanwhile, you've lost 20 straight federal cases.

 

"Civil unions" (as implemented) do not provide "the same legal and political rights as heterosexual couples". They are not recognized by the federal government. They are not portable from state to state. And they mark same-sex couples as targets for discrimination.

Which is pretty sad, given that legal marriage is really just the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION.

If the two things (marriage and civil unions) provide the same legal rights, then there is no need whatsoever for them to be separate legal institutions. It's inefficient, creates confusion, and introduces the opportunity for legislators to give 'marriage' more legal rights that 'civil unions', thus defeating the alleged purpose.

I will tell you what the real purpose is: It's so some heterosexuals can pretend to themselves how 'forward thinking' they are, while seeking to maintain their own misplaced sense of superiority.

In other words, we see right through this BS.

Holy Matrimony is a religious sacrament. The government does not recognize "holy matrimonies"; it recognizes legal marriages. The two things (marriage vs holy matrimony) are not synonymous.

Nevermind that there are churches that marry same-sex couples. Do you think you have a right to restrict their religious practices?

 

Words have a meaning independent of the meaning you wish them to have

mat·ri·mo·ny noun \ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē\

: the joining together of a man and woman as husband and wife

Full Definition of MATRIMONY
: the state of being married : marriage

Not even a religious connotation

 

At one time I thought civil unions were the reasonable accomodation.

I really did- I thought that it was the compromise that could be lived with.

But the homophobes fought to make laws ensuring that civil unions would never be treated equally with marriage.

So I decided to hell with being reasonable- the haters will never 'accomodate' anything- might as well go for marriage- because they will fight it all anyway.

 

The issue of Civil Unions keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

 

I am married and we are both men. Seems like old world terms have been made obsolete.

 

And yet matrimony is a religious institution with no legal standing. Marriage is a legal institution and includes same sex couples.

 

Words have meaning independent of the meaning you wish them to have.

mat·ri·mo·ny /ˈmatrəˌmōnē/

noun: matrimony

the state or ceremony of being married; marriage.

"a couple joined in matrimony"

synonyms: marriage,
.........
matrimony (ˈmætrɪmən&#618
n, pl -nies
1. the state or condition of being married

 

And yet matrimony is a religious institution with no legal standing. Marriage is a legal institution which includes same sex couples.

 

The thing I struggle to understand is how anyone can think that a "reasonable accommodation" would ever be enough. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or mean-spirited, but sincere. I think there is a fair amount of people who are 'appeasement-minded' in this, rather than thinking in terms of real equality. Not to mention people who think they're for equality without really understanding what that truly means.

I've unfortunately encountered people who are 'okay with the gay' in abstract terms, but aren't prepared to come face-to-face with it when their loved-one actually meets someone important enough to introduce that person to friends and family. People like my "sister-in-law"; it was devastating to my partner to discover the limits of his family's acceptance of his orientation.

My own family has until very recently been what you might call "quietly accepting", meaning it wasn't talked about, so we didn't always know where we stood with them, apart from some nephews and nieces calling my partner 'uncle' without any apparent prompting. But as the legal issue of marriage has become more common in the news, they've started not only talking to us about it, but also speaking up in our defense. My sister and niece feel weird about the fact that there has never been any formal celebration of our union, equivalent to their weddings. Where we had previously figured we would just quietly handle the legal formalities if our state's amendment was ever repealed or overturned, we're now rethinking the possibility of doing something to celebrate with family. It's a huge paradigm shift for us.

But then there's the question of what to do about inviting his side of the family. Would they view it as an attempt to "impose our lifestyle" on them? Would they just politely decline (which we can't help but feel as another rejection - we are human after all). Mostly we cringe at the thought of having to have any sort of interaction with them that involves the concept of 'us'. I already have decidedly mixed feelings about their potential (non) attendance. If we don't invite them, would it hurt their feelings (whether or not they want to attend)? Would it forever bar any chance of them re-entering our lives, should they someday be ready to accept us? We're condemned if we do, and likewise if we don't.

Supporting same-sex marriage as an abstract concept is one thing; being prepared to really deal with gay people as equals is quite another. Of course, there's no shortage of people who can't deal with it even in the abstract.