Current Article

“Separate But Equal”?

By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on May 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM in Civil Liberties & Rights, Current Affairs, Gay Rights

Fellow NQ writer, Ani, had a very good post entitled, “Like Putting Lipstick On A Pig: Olbermann, Musto, and Yes, Jay Leno.” One of the issues that came up in the post and comments was about same sex marriage and civil unions, courtesy of Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean (once again, Prejean’s stance on same-sex marriage is IDENTICAL to Obama’s).

Coincidentally, I received the following letter from an old friend of mine living in NH in response to the recent Press Release from Gov. Lynch of NH. With her permission, I have reprinted it below, with her letter in italics:

Press Release
For Immediate Release Contact:
April 29, 2009 Communications Director
Office of the Governor
603-271-2121

Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Passage of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

“I recognize that the issue of same-sex marriage is intensely passionate and personal, and raises strong emotions on all sides.

“I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions.”

Dear Gov. Lynch:

Please do NOT veto the gay marriage bill. Institutionalizing the concept of “Separate but Equal” – even if it were equal, which it’s not — of the civil union law doesn’t cut it, sorry. Every single gay person I have known or do know just wants to make a home and a life, love their partners, raise their kids (yes, kids), without constantly tippy-toe-ing around an arcane and archaic legal and social structure that hinders them – directly or indirectly — at every important turn. I mean, what box does a former or presently civilly-unionified person check on every standard form that asks: Married, Single, Divorced, Widowed, etc.? Are we really going to ask for all forms be redone or for gay people to once again metaphorically check “Other”? In chit-chat, or a job interview, when asked “Are you married?,” what do they say? “Sort-of?” When, in reliance on the civil union law, an employee checks “Married” on their health insurance form, do they risk disqualification? Even termination? What if a transaction is out of state or interstate where our marriages are recognized but civil unions aren’t even mentioned?

If the right to marry is a fundamental right under the pursuit of happiness clause in our Constitution, as it has been declared time and again, below this request please find an off-the-top-of-my-head outline of the interrelated reasons why we can’t deny it to any person under our jurisdiction. Suffice to say that I look at your impending executive decision – as I hope you do – not as one of personal beliefs but as our Governor, our Chief Executive. A veto effectively “sends it back” or, worse, tacitly tables it. The civil union law was a great dress rehearsal, but we’re not done.

This unfair and unnecessary separation – this literal discrimination (“The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., pub. Houghton Mifflin), will never survive much more constitutional or moral scrutiny anywhere. A quick read today of the public comments on the Union Leader website on the topic reveals – ironically in an “opposed” (to the bill) remark – just this. Someone said, I paraphrase, that you can’t make a horse a cow by calling it a cow. Well, you certainly can’t make an animal a cow by calling it an animal either.

Can New Hampshire achieve, fully, as we must, gay persons’ equality through civil unions? No. The term and use of “marriage” is so deeply and pervasively embedded in our legal and social framework that full equality is, if only as a practical matter, impossible under the “union” rule. As written, the civil union law, as it purportedly relates to the marriage law, is entirely incoherent. On its face, the civil union law allows people to enter these unions in a manner similar to marriage, but remains painfully silent on the myriad of rights, privileges and immunities available to married people referenced elsewhere under the New Hampshire code and beyond. See, for example, the inherent contradictions between the civil union law and the marriage law at NHRSA s. 457:39 regarding cohabitation. Aside from that, the reference in your Press Release relating to and relying on the federal government is – sorry – at best premature, even irrelevant, until we make our own laws coherent. Under current federal law, all the more reason, not less, to call all our unions marriages.

Or, I suppose, as an alternative toward full equality under civil unions, we could remove all references to marriage (married, marital, spousal, spouse, husband, wife, bride, groom, etc.) not only from all our statutes (including the marriage law at sec. 457), but also all regulations, public policies and directives, and all private entities’ policies and documents subject thereto. Golly, the gay marriage bill seems a lot easier.

In the interest of space and time – I’ll leave it to your legal and policy teams, and your obviously keen intellect, to flesh this list out easily in support of my considered position.

Demographic Note: I am (by personal, legal, and political choice), white, female, and raised in the non-practicing Christian “tradition.” I am a voting Democrat, social progressive, fiscal conservative, favoring libertarian practices unless and only unless outweighed by a compelling public need that cannot be met by less restrictive means.

Respectfully,
“Concerned Citizen,” Esq.

Facts and Social History
Nature of Protected Minority: DSM-IV, Cultural and Sub-Cultural Norms and Practices
Civil Institutions
Legal Institutions Created by the State
Global Religious Tenets and Traditions (including multi-disciplinary exegeses on Judeo-Christian Biblical interpretation)
De Facto Public and Private Discrimination

Comparative Legal History
Interracial Marriage: Loving v. Virginia
Common Law Marriage
Bigamy and Polygamy; Patriarchy, Mistresses and Concubines
Presumptive Legitimacy of Children: Patrilineal and Matrilineal
Public Policies by “Least Restrictive Means;” Majority Rule
The Male Vote and Women’s Suffrage (14th & 19th Amendments)*

Constitutional Issues
Freedom of Religion (or non-recognition thereof); Establishment Clause
Equal Protection and Fairness; Privileges and Immunities; Due Process*
Federalism and Full Faith and Credit**

Separation and Balance of Powers
Legislative Role: Civil Union v. Marriage**
Executive Role: Administration and Populism
Judicial Role: Constitutional Review

Legal Issues**
Property Ownership
Intestacy
Personal Proxy (e.g., medical, child care)
Spousal Privilege
Adoption
Public and Private Marital Benefits and Liabilities

Yeah. What SHE said.

Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq

For some people I don’t think it’s a desire to discriminate against gay people or that they even think they are not equal. Many are Christians who believe God’s law is marriage between a man and a woman to pro-create, simple as that.

Pablo Cruz

Yeah, what’s your point? What does a Christian’s belief regarding God’s Law have to do with the laws of the United States of America?

raging

excellent point
Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq

You don’t have to get nasty with me, I am just saying what Christians believe.

In answer to your question, Christians believe God’s law supercedes anything else. The US has alot of laws that are immoral and wrong so I wouldn’t use that as a basis for your argument.

ziggy

Christians believe God’s law supercedes anything else.

Some Muslims share that attitude.

People should be free to lead their own lives in accordance with their religious beliefs. They shouldn’t presume any right to impose their beliefs or restrictions on me.

termo

I am ambivalent when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage.

Regarding civil law I have no problem with same sex unions with all the same benefits as opposite sex unions.

Where I have a problem is the issue of civil law forcing a religious entity to consumate a religious marriage. That I believe the separation of church and state do not permit any government entity to impose any such law. It needs to be left up to those religious entities. There are a diverse range of those entities and I am sure that same sex partners can find ones that are accepting.

Conversely, I do not believe that a religious entity has the right to impose religious doctrine on civil bodies of law.

Having said all this, my only questions is given the increasing rate of divorce why do gays and lesbians want anything to do with marriage.:)

CarolynKB

A better question would be, “why do heterosexuals want anything to do with marriage?”
NoBamaNoWay

no religious entity will be forced to do anything. when has the law ever dictated the *private* practices of churches? the reality is that religious groups who wish to do so may currently “marry” same-sex couples, while those who do not want to do not have to, and that will not change. the only thing that would change is that if same-sex marriage was legalized the religious same-sex marriages would also be legally binding.

NomNomNom

You make an interesting point when you say that christians believe (their idea of) God’s Law supersedes actual law.
I also hold my own beliefs above actual law and will not compromise them.
This is one of the reasons I’m for gay marriage, in spite of having grown up with it as illegal.
I don’t think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages. But there is no reason a civil ceremony can’t be equal.
One obvious solution is to not use religious ceremonies as legally binding. There’s supposed to be a freaking separation of church and state anyhow. If churches are to have any legal authority, then they certainly should not have tax exempt status.
Beyond that, why should there be benefits or deficits to being married? Most of this crap came about to subsidize those with children, something that does not exactly correspond well with marriage anymore, and should be the responsibility of the offspring makers, not bystanders, in any event.

jwrjr

One problem is that for many self-proclaimed “Christians” (usually the ones who proclaim it the loudest) “God’s Law” is whatever they want it to be. They cite it as a way to deify their prejudices.

Greetings From Jersey

You don’t have to get nasty with me, I am just saying what Christians believe.

I think people are just wondering what it is you believe.
http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

I would say SOME Christians believe that marriage is for procreation, not all. Many Christians get married for legal/cultural/religious reasons, not just for procreation.

And even still, it is being used as a tool to discriminate, whether it’s meant to or not…

http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

Many are Christians who believe God’s law is marriage between a man and a woman to pro-create

Then they shouldn’t allow post menopausal women to marry? Then both my parents could not have remarried and experienced the happiness they’ve had. Sorry, with all due respect, the Bible just doesn’t cover all situations so we have to take it farther out, and I think the almighty would highly approve of both senior marriage and gay marriage because it’s about living in a committed loving relationship and creating a home environment, not procreating.

NoBamaNoWay

one should also remember that the bible defines marriage as a polygamous institution, but you don’t hear too many “christians” calling for returning to that tradition.

Concerned Citizen

Civil and religious distinction people heads up. The NH bill makes the distinction explicitly: no religious body must perform any ceremony it doesnt condone. This is also true in all — so far — states where the state law is evolving forward. Duh — whut — say whut? Have any of you people even looked at the laws you’re talking at? In fact, WITHIN many religious “traditions” there’s a lot of hoo-hah about rules already? Any Catholics of different genders tried to get “married” lately?

So people’s hearts are in the right places? Let’s roll.

CarolynKB

Thanks for this post Amy. I’ve been in this
“separate but equal” (which has not a hint of equality associated with it) for the past several weeks at several other blogs on the internet.

Since I was raised in the South and am old enough to remember Jim Crow in it full bigoted seperatist measure, all I see in Civil Unions is “Jim Crow for queers” (a gay person on another blog chastised me for calling myself a queer when I used the expression, I attempted to relate to her that queer means different/odd and that’s exactly what Civil Unions are, a different or odd category just especially for teh gayz.

Again thank you Amy, I can use your post for future reference or to put it more succinctly, FIGHTS!

Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq

“queers” is used to insult gay people, I would never use it.

Chelsea Patriot

“Queers” is used to insult people, I would never use it.”

I am giving you a standing ovation, Tom Cat! Thank You!
NoBamaNoWay

it can be, and one must definitely take into consideration the speaker and context, but many GLBTs have “reclaimed” the word and use it to describe themselves.

Chelsea Patriot

Hi, Carolyn!
We meet again.
For of the rest of the NQ posters, I am the “gay person on another blog who chastised her for calling (her)self a queer.” The other blog was Hillbuzz. And I am very much a male.

First off, you are completely wrong about Civil unions or Domestic Partnerships being “just especially for ‘teh gayz’”
Domestic Partnerships/Civil unions are available to heterosexual people, too, at least in NYC.
Heterosexual people who do not want to be married yet share a household are eligible for Domestic partnerships/Civil unions. These could be Senior citizens who would lose pensions and SS benefits if they re-marry. They could be people who dislike the concept of marriage and want more legal coverage then what a Common Law marriage gives. They could be long-term Roommates, needing the protection a Civil Union gives the non-lease holder. There are households that do not fit into your “Marriage Paradigm.”
No one has yet to explain to why a Bill couldn’t be written that says all rights and responsibilities of a Marriage are to be accorded to Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships.
Why is that? Why not argue for CU’s having the same rights as marriage? Probably because it wouldn’t be as volatile and fun!
To answer, the rather incoherent letter sent to Gov. Lynch:
I tell people that I am in a registered Domestic partnership. I refer to him as my “partner.”
I have done that for 12 years and not once have I ever felt “seperate but equal”.
You may feel like your relationship is nothing but a piece of shit until you can walk down the aisle in a veil. I sure don’t feel that way.

“Queer” is what they call you, right before they kill you. Ask Matthew Shepherd.

Chelsea Patriot

Let me clarify my pentultimate paragraph.

I sure don’t feel that way..about your relationship or mine.
CarolynKB

Hi Chelsea:

I’ve spent over 35 years out of the closet and I’ve been called queer many, many, times, along the way, along with dyke and Lez, by the homophobes. I also live in the south and we have no options for our relationships and if we did my partner and I would choose marriage because we’re both old enough to remember how separate but equal ends up, unequal and very marginalized.

Now I have NO desire for a veil or tux or any of those things. I have no desire for a religious wedding. I want access to the same EXACT civil marriage contract that heterosexuals have and I will continue to work to get it. If you read Amy’s article it should be apparent exactly why separate but equal has pitfalls that most people can’t even begin to imagine. I have an attorney friend who’s explained to me on a number of occasions that she can’t fashion enough legal contracts to give my partner and I the same rights in the law that straight people have with marriage.

As for the word queer. I don’t know what circles you move in, but the circle I move in use it ofter. I have many friends and we call ourselves teh girl queers, especially when we’re reminiscing. I don’t see that interaction between friends as demeaning to me or my relationship. I have 3 friends who were involved in Stonewall, one has passed on. I have 7 friends who died of Aids (including 2 cousins) when the US government sat on the sidelines twiddling it’s thumbs because our pols considered it to be a queer only disease that could/would never reach the straight population. I’ve spent half of my life with my sexual orientation being illegal in my state of residence. I’ve had friends jailed for kissing their partner in public. I lost a friend to a hate-crime attack in the parking lot of gay night spot. I’ve had many friends lose jobs, housing, etc. because they are gay. I’ve known several women who were good mothers who lost custody of their children. I even had a close friend lose her only child to her ex-husband who was an alcoholic because she refused to lie about her sexual orientation under oath. In all of my lifetime, which is considerable, gay people have always used the word queer to express their anger at the straight community that discriminates against them or in casual conversation with friends. I’ve never had another gay person take offense with the word as you’ve done.

And FYI The most recent expression of our community is LGBTQ which means:
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning. Sounds about right to me!!!

So no, marriage for me is not about a veil, it’s about a lifetime of over 6 decades living OUT in a world who prefers me in and nothing short of marriage will bring me to full and equal parity in the law. Apparenlty Amy and her Attorney friend agree.

http://rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

CarolynKB, thank you for this…

CarolynKB

Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq:

If you truly believe that marriage is to procreate, then you should immediately begin advocating for marriage only for the purpose of procreation. No seniors, no folks who don’t want to have children, no folks who can’t have children. Does that sound fair, because that is exactly what you suggest?

Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq

Did you read my post?? I said “some people” and “Christians” believe that. I did not say that was my belief! Cripes, bring up the word Christian, and people go beserk.
jwrjr

Are the ones who believe that marriage is for the purpose of procreation also demanding that married folk not be allowed to buy contraceptives? (/sarcasm)

CarolynKB

Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq:

Beserk? Tom Cat, you are prone to the exaggeration, aren’t you?

I don’t think any gay person here or anywhere needs a recap on why some folks want to keep the CIVIL CONTRACT of marriage from the gay community, we’ve heard it all.

Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq

Carolyn, this is an open blog, I am free to express my opinions here even if you don’t agree with them.

CarolynKB

Tom Cat:

Well of course it’s an open blog, you have the right to express your views, I have the right to express mine.

When you came right out of the gate with an explanation (bad one at that) for why some christians oppose gay marriage, it seemed logical to me that you concurred, especially since you never said you didn’t. So if you don’t, good!

Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

well you don’t know shit then do you?

CarolynKB

I know it when I see it, thanks for giving me a peek.

benny

tom, they’ll keep hounding you till you believe in their stated position. happens all the time. just let it go.

Craig Della Penna

Looks like this issue quickly becomes one of state vs church. The necessary advantages of a civil marriage become more obvious the more you look at them. I think the problem rests with our inability to distinguish between ‘civil’ and ‘sacred’ marriage.
For legal purposes we should go forward with full civil marriages for LGBT citizens. At one time I thought that ‘civil union’ would suffice, I no longer think that is enough.
Whether churches, synagogues and mosques choose to solemnize these marriages is their business but the legal rights of any citizen in this country should not be abrogated by the moral convictions of any other citizen.

http://trackacrat.com/ Track-A-’Crat

Craig,

My thoughts exactly.

Those who are most opposed to gay marriage are those people who have been married in a religious ceremony. Churches, synagogues and mosques, etc, are most likely not going to choose to marry gay couples themselves. That should satisfy those who want to keep religious marriage as it is.

And civil marriage, outside of the church, would satisfy most (if not all) of the LGBT citizens who desire it.

Is that not acceptable to all?
Ellen D

Craig, once again I agree with you completely.

I was married twice – once by a Presbyterian minister, once by a Rabbi.
Were they religious ceremonies? Damned if I know – they both said nice vague-sounding things (no “obeys”;) and then afterward sent in the official papers.
Do I care if they were religious? no.

Let the ministers, rabbis and whatever marry whoever they want in and out of their religions but let judges, sea captains and other non-religious functionaries marry everyone indescriminately.
All marriages should be recognized by the government.

Marriage should be for everyone – you’ll find someone who will do it. Before my last ceremony the Rabbi married two Mynah Birds on television.
Hmmm…maybe that one wasn’t religious.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

The reason why “marriage” was invented was because of property — land and other “stuff”.

Dowager’s right — that is the wife has a right to a certain percentage of the property/holdings. In order to sell land the wife had to sign away her dowager’s rights.

Generally, a widow supported by the property of her deceased husband. In real property, a widow who has a life estate in the real property of her husband by her right of dower. Moynihan, Introduction to the Law of Real Property 68 (3d ed. 2002).

The part or interest of a deceased man’s real estate allotted by law to his widow for her lifetime. Also called dowry.

Way back in time — unless a wife was protected by the law of the land she owned nothing even if SHE brought land and money to the marriage. It goes to show us just how bad off a woman’s lot in life was that the state had to legislate and that the institution of marriage was invented.

These existing records are often the only paper trail we have on our female ancestors in our hunt for genealogical records.

What does this have to do with gays and their right to enter into a marriage contract? Unless the spouses are protected by law — they can be disinherited just like the old wives tossed out on the street. Spouses need the protection & formality of law because that is how the real world works.

Pair bonding is older than humans — many species are know to form long term bonds with another individual of their species.

It only seems logical and RIGHT to recognize a reality — that pair bonding sometimes also means individuals of the same sex. Our Nation must put that recognition of fact into the force of law, because people can be vindictive and cruel. (I guess I’m saying that Gays need legal protection against some Christians.)

NomNomNom

part of that property was the woman herself.
No thx. F#ck all marriage. Aside from the money angle, I can’t understand why anyone would want any part of it. And the money could never be worth it.
I’m not saying I don’t think it should be legal for all those who want it, I just think they’re all crazy.

Chelsea Patriot

“Part of that property was the woman herself”
Exactly!
Marriage has its roots in the man owning the woman. The man would buy the virgin woman from her father. The woman became the property of the man.
All our marriage rites and customs stem from the above scenerio: the ring, the woman’s surname change, the white wedding dress, the father giving the bride away..

I learned the above from my Left-Wing Radical Lesbian Separatist Feminist Literature Professors in the early 80′s.
Gay relationships do not come from this same background. Gay relationships do not have this specific history behind them.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge.

NomNomNom

I’m more of a green libertarian hillbilly feminist, lol. Times do change, even when stereotypes do not.

“Gay relationships do not come from this same background. Gay relationships do not have this specific history behind them.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge.”

I don’t deny your statement at all, I just find it to be irrelevant. The institution of marriage has been and continues to be used to enslave women and girls the world over.
I’d prefer to see an end to it for that reason.

I have already said that if there is to be marriage it’s my opinion that it should be equal for everyone.
http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

Though we grow up in the same culture, so not sure what you mean abt gay relationships not aving this history.

Again, the issue for me is access to the same benefits. For instance, VA passed a law, with the support of Obama’s choice to be DNC Chair, Tim Kaine, that same sex people unrelated by blood could not leave each other their property. So you could be partners with someone for years, and not inherit a thing.

Plus all the fed benefits…

benny

Oooohhhhhhhhhhhhh, what a controversial subject. yeah, we got 2 sides to the issue. One side just does not believe in gay-marriage ( aka BHO, Hillary Clinton and others). They accept civil unions, but for an ordinary person, it ain’t PC to say so.

The other side believes that its a question of civil rights, and that those who are against gay-marriage are bigots.

Yeah, we got a few ultra-conservatives who don’t believe in civil unions and are against it. But thats another matter.

It’ll be interesting to note how people are attacked in this thread for stating their beliefs.

CarolynKB

Benny:

Tell me why gay people aren’t entitled to the Civil Contract of Marriage without the fall back “the bible tells me so” position. Just give me one good legal reason why US Citizens are denied the opportunity to enter into the legal contract of Civil marriage with the person they love?

benny

hehehehe, nope, won’t argue with you. I’ve seen what you’ve typed over the course of this thread, so arguing is counter-productive. Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?

Why don’t you ask BHO or Hillary Clinton why they don’t approve of ‘gay-marriage’? you’ll get a better answer from that side.

But I’m not looking for any fights. and this seems to be regular for those who disagree with your stated position.

Just ain’t PC to say so. thats all.

CarolynKB

I didn’t figure you’d answer, because you have no answer. It’s just pure old homophobia that drives your objection.

And I didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t see him as a friend of the LBGTQ community.

Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

yes, yes Benny. I was immediately attacked for just stating that “some people and Christians” believe marriage is between a man and woman without stating that was my belief.

Good point that Hillary and BO don’t support gay marriage but for the rest of us it’s not PC. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

CarolynKB

Wha, Wha, Whaaaaaa! Cry me a river. Poor man, attacked by the lesbian for pushing the christian dogma at us, then pretending that it wasn’t his personal conviction. I don’t know whether he’s a coward, a liar or both. A cowardly liar.

benny

yep, expected behavior. lol.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

The SPAM monster ate my comment.

Mostly I said that Gay couples need the protection of the law — just like wives needed the protection of the law — “dowager’s rights” hundreds of years ago because without laws giving specific rights, some humans can be cruel and vindictive.

Marriage was originally recognized because pair bondings in humans results in an accumulation of “stuff” and when there is stuff — other humans will fight over the “stuff”. Evidently the old wife getting tossed out to fend for herself must have been very common in the old pre dowager right days — for a law in antiquity to be enacted.

Why not just recognize the facts and extend the existing laws to other “non-traditional” pairs?

In the future these legal records will make it easier for genealogists to trace their family history. (The dowager rights are often the only trace we can find of our female relatives.)

http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

oh — Indiana is NOT a Dower state. According to WikiAnswers — topic real estate.

So Indiana is still in the dark ages?

Aaron Kramer

Take the word marriage out of the discussion and 70% + support gay unions. The problem is that “marriage” has a religious connotations in virtually every culture. Since religion, like language, go hand and hand with culture you run into problems when a religion does not support homosexuality. Remove civil marriage ceremonies from religious institutions and force any 2 people who want the Contractual Civil Union recognized by the state to sign a non ceremonial contract at the Office for Contractual Civil Unions. All previous marriages, in any formerly sanctioned institution, will be recognized as Contractual Civil Unions. Any Contractual Civil Unions will have equal rights and benefits under the law, including those formerly recognized and associated with civil marriage proceedings.

The fight is about equal rights not the word “marriage”. Anyone who wants to celebrate their union with a ceremony is free to do so anywhere they chose after the Contractual Civil Union contract is signed. This is important from a civil/equal rights perspective but is really a distraction because people on both sides want to force others to live or justify their respective lifestyles. Live your lives and leave others alone and stop judging and start respecting. It will be meaningless if the government destroys the dollar, takes away more of our rights and starts more wars in Pakistan and Iran. Can we come together deal with this issue and move on?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

YES!!

Insert religion into any subject and there is going to be trouble.

There must be a separation of church and state — and perhaps this is an area that needs a rigid separation.

Contractual Civil Union contract

YES!
benny

won’t work.

http://deleted Aaron Kramer

Thanks for the constructive criticism Benny, your contribution will not be forgotten.

meileen

I’ll settle for civil unions until I get gay marriage. Those that don’t understand the difference should begin to accept that this will occur over time – it is only fair that ALL people have equal rights.

I wish those that play religion as their card would take their bigotry-fueled energy and feed the hungry with it.

Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

uh oh, the bigot card…..

benny

ohhh…………..the bigot accusation. lol.

Its getting old now.

meileen

so are you. getting old, that is.

benny

yep, I’m getting old. Every human being does.

meileen

old, yes. human, not so much.

benny

yep, that was expected. lol

Kim

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is akin to a partnerhip agreement between two consenting adults with the intent to create a family. You must have a license to get into a marriage and a lawyer to get out of it. Giving gays and lesbians the right to marry isn’t going to effect all the heterosexuals who are married one bit. There are people who may not like it, but they can’t deny someone a right, just because of a personal belief.

People who don’t think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, most likely feel that way because they don’t agree with their lifestyle to begin with. It goes much deeper than just believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Giving gays and lesbians the right to marry doesn’t take anything away from anyone else.

http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

Yet another difference between “civil unions” and marriages are the FEDERAL benefits GLBT couples do not receive that heterosexuals do. And there are a LOT of them.

One MAJOR difference between Hillary Clinton and BHO is that she supports, and was going to give, FULL FEDERAL BENEFITS to GLBT couples.

And it is a state v. religion issue, too – not just that some denominations wish not to perform the ceremonies. When I perform a wedding, and sign that marriage certificate, it is LEGALLY binding, not just binding in a religious sense. On this issue, at least, the two are most definitely bound together.

http://www.homestudioessentials.com/ A-Nony-Mouse

I am disappointed that President Obama has not taken a strong stand in favor of gay marriage.

I honestly think that he’s in favor of it personally but that he’s playing politics (triangulating as they used to call in the Clinton days.)

Two more issues I’m disappointed by when it comes to Obama’s admin so far:

1. Universal Health Care. I support HR 676 (single payer health care) and I think the majority of Americans would too if they understood what it would mean for their lives. Yes I think the health care reforms that the Obama admin is pushing will be a step in the right direction, but it’s not the leap in the right direction I think we should make.

2. Civil Liberties. I strongly support the decriminalization of all drugs. I do not believe in the idea of a “victimless crime.” No victim = no crime. I believe it’s time that “land of the free” became more than just a slogan. Obviously this is a touchy subject because so many people have misguided notions on drug use but I believe that the young people of America strongly favor legalization and that it’s only a matter of time.
Concerned Citizen

OK. I’ve slogged thru all the comments now:
Two more clarifications. To be a ilttle condescending, most of the comments seem to talk about social colloquialisms around the words union and marriage. That’s as cute as a speckled pig. The real laws that have real effect, tho, have real distinctions. For example, here I go again, with all the NH reaserch for example, for example. 1. The propsoed NH marriage law had to deal with it’s potenitally disadvantageious conflicts with two main federal laws… not to mention the so-called Defense of Marraige Law. Check this out” the railroad retirement laws and the IRS cluster. So what? SO the NH legistative craftsmen[sic] just said, BTW, nothing here is meant to interfere w/dat. Legislatively, that’d work. 2. Esp.for Chelsea Patriot, Tom Cat, and even well-meaning Northwest Rain, as one of my favorite movie characters said to her movie stepmom, How’d you get to be so old without knowni’ nothin’? There are huge differences between “voluntary” domestic partnerships and marriages. I’d rather have many root canals than marry, but …………. anyway, the whole legal discussion is about the civil institution. Got ZERO to do with someone’s memory of a church.
Too serious? Sorry.

CarolynKB

Thanks for the voice of reason Concerned Citizen. I laid out my life in nutshell in an earlier post so that any gay person who would suggest offense at the word “queer” when spoken by another gay person is wasting their anger on the wrong person.

I’ve seen far too much tragedy within the gay community to have my right as a taxpaying U.S. Citizen put on a shelf by the theories of someone’s 1980′s College Professor, especially considering that even as they were studying theory, I had already been living the life and taking the beating that came with it for a good 20 years.

In my 60′s now I have heard all the reasons, from gays and straights, why I don’t need gay marriage. My answer to gays who hold this opinion (all 80 of you) is “do what you will where marriage is concerned, but get out of the way of those of us who want it”. To straight people who pontificate on their biblically motivated reasons for denying the LGBTQ community the civil contract of marriage, I say, “Better hide, because It’s gonna happen”.

CarolynKB

In an effort to be completely accurate I have to correct a statement I made in my post above.

I wrote: “I’ve seen far too much tragedy within the gay community to have my right as a taxpaying U.S. Citizen put on a shelf by the theories of someone’s 1980’s College Professor, especially considering that even as they were studying theory, I had already been living the life and taking the beating that came with it for a good 20 years.”

That should have been a good “10+ years”, My mental math skills are abysmal.