HOORAY! Maybe now we can begin to stop the last greatest human rights violation of our time in the United States!

If I ever get divorced from my husband, I will marry a woman! Yes I will!

How DARE the government tell me who I can or can't marry (as long as it's consenting adult!)

I knew it was WRONG to deny Gay people the right to get married when I was four years old! I wanted to marry my best friend Kristin and my mom said I couldn't because two girls could not get married and I was like "WHAT?!?!?! WHY NOT?????????? WTF???"

GAY MARRIAGE NOW!!!

What I want to know is why the word "marriage" is carring so much weight?

definition:

**ANY close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

**a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger

The state is allowing a "marriage".

The state has allowed the "marriage" of Wachovia and Golden Coast

It is not saying that the or a Church has to allow "holy matrimony" which to me is a totally different concept.

Splitting hairs? yes. And I think thats the whole point.

I agree with the people who agree with the Rev Billy Graham, that with all of the sins going on in this world, why is homosexuality more impt? Expecially with the fact that they are two consenting adults.

I think adultery is a BIGGER sin, causes more problems, causes hate, causes pain and is, to me, more WRONG.

Why dont we have stronger laws that prevent that?

Thank you Jill, for articulating the issue so clearly. I completely agree. I will never understand the ridiculous concept that limiting legal marriage to adults of opposite sex somehow "protects" the institution.

I am conscerned with the "institution" that people are trying to protect?

1. The act of instituting.

1. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.

If I remember correctly, there used to be a CUSTOM in New York where women would enter in to a marrage bond together to protect themselves. Mostly they were widowed or just women who had come together to help eachother out with raising children. I believe they were Brownstone Women. I cant find it on the net, I am not sure I am calling them correctly.

1. Informal. One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.

For example the Institution of the Church

1. <LI type=a>An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture. <LI type=a>The building or buildings housing such an organization.
   
2. A place for the care of persons who are destitute, disabled, or mentally ill

So who's traditions and institutions are we trying to protect? The Church's?

Who's Church has the last say?

Some people think in concepts and logic, while others only deal with emotion.

If I explain to a person working at Wal-Mart the logic of keeping the estate tax exclusion from becoming too high, including that "it siphons money from the tax system to the benefit of only the 1/2 of one percent of the richest people in the USA, it hurts the churches and other charities, because people who used to give money to charity rather than keep it to be taxed, now keep it and also that it inhibits (or at least slows) the formation of a permanent aristocracy", they respond with, "but a 'death tax' ain't right" or “I'm tired of high taxes and now they want to tax me twice”.

For years I have said that there should be two concepts under law:

One would be for Matrimony performed by the church where the Federal government and all states would recognize than union as legal for the purpose of all regulations and laws like Social Security, probate, health-care, etc.

The other would be unions performed my the state/government which would carry all the same benefits and rights as the first, but would not have anything to do with religious organizations.

One would be for Matrimony performed by the church where the Federal government and all states would recognize than union as legal for the purpose of all regulations and laws like Social Security, probate, health-care, etc.

The other would be unions performed my the state/government which would carry all the same benefits and rights as the first, but would not have anything to do with religious organizations.

Absolutely. The fact is that there ARE two separate arrangements in place now. Even if you have a religious ceremony, you STILL have to sign that marriage license and have it approved by the officiant. You can say "I do" in front of a cleric until you're blue in the face but if that paper ain't signed, you ain't legally married.

So I honestly don't get the uproar. The idea that "marriage" is actually a legal construct that should be altered to meet our society's yardstick of nondiscrimination is just recognizing an existing reality, lifting some outdated social blinders.

In this country marriage is now a legal, civil, non-religious partnership between two adults. The religious ceremony is totally optional and utterly, completely nonbinding in the eyes of the law. People getting married in the church ALSO have the civil paperwork completed.

1. Evangelicals using the bible to condemn Gay marriage but ignore many of the other teachings: hypocritical

2. Christians professing to follow Jesus but then judging and putting down others: hypocritical

3. The top evangelical leader who crusades against Gay marriage turning out to be Gay himself: priceless

If the Republicans get creamed in this election, expect to see a purge of Gays that would make Lenin and Stalin envious.

I do have one quarrel with domestic partnerships, though it is a purely personal one. In our case, I feel that same sex households are given better, broader treatment.

The company from which my DH retired provides identical benefits to a same-sex "domestic partner" as it does a spouse. Two guys (or two girls) only have to sign a piece of paper stating they have lived together in a "spouse-like" relationship for 6 months or more and that if same-sex marriages becomes legal, they will get married. If the DP of the employee/retiree has children from a previous relationship, they are also eligible for benefits, whether they live with the couple or not. And the employee/retiree can change DPs every 6 months, in case the relationship doesn't work out.

We have a granddaughter who lives with us and has for some years now. She has no other home. She sees her mother perhaps twice a month, and her father even less. But we do not have court-ordered custody of her (we do have Power of Attorney), and therefore my DH's company will not allow us to add her to our health insurance plan - even though we are willing to pay the additional premiums.

I think this is somewhat biased and unfair, inasmuch as DPs are not required to provide similar documentation. I have argued my case with them, but to no avail. We should have asked my DH's union to go to bat for us before he retired, but unfortunately, we didn't.

Let another couple move in to your home and claim the female as your DP and the male as you DH's DP.

Problem solved. :faint:

Let another couple move in to your home and claim the female as your DP and the male as you DH's DP.

Problem solved. :faint:

That won't work (even if we had the extra room), but I suspect you already knew that.

My husband would have to divorce me first, since you can't have a "domestic partner" unless you are both "free to marry".

I don't get to designate a DP, since I'm not the employee/retiree. Only one per employee number...LOL

Doesn't your DH's firm allow multi-gender polygamy?

Doesn't your DH's firm allow multi-gender polygamy?

No....the narrow-minded morons. Do you think we should file a class action lawsuit?

Carlene, there's a movie coming out about firefighters who pose as Gay to receive same-sex partner benefits offered by their company. It's a comedy but I forget who stars in it. It looks pretty hilarious though.

I agree with you, and I think many of the current laws need to be revised to be more inclusive of people in special circumstances.

Sunta: Has someone been watching "South Park"?

Carlene, there's a movie coming out about firefighters who pose as Gay to receive same-sex partner benefits offered by their company. It's a comedy but I forget who stars in it. It looks pretty hilarious though.

I agree with you, and I think many of the current laws need to be revised to be more inclusive of people in special circumstances.

All it would take is to stop trying to define family so narrowly.

Also, as long as the lower middle-class, the group that is most hurt by lack of health insurance/coverage can be convinced that government provided health-care is an evil socialist plot to take away our freedom, we will have these predicaments.

What would be worse: No medical coverage or limited choice of doctors?