Weigh In: Legalizing Gay Marriage
 

Is this something that should be done? Should we allow gays/lesbians the legal right to marry? Is marriage only something that can occur between a man and a woman?

Let's discuss....

A man and a woman.

Personally, I believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman.

However, I see nothing wrong with committment ceremonies that provide gay couples with legal rights (tax concerns, insurance, etc).

Ditto

I'm honestly conflicted about this.

If we're talking about marriage in the legal sense, I'm not wild about government legislating what goes on inside a couple's home.

If we're talking about the religious sense, I'm really in conflict and, frankly, that's an argument I just don't feel like having right now.

edit:

Here's something new. I'm quoting a later post. See immediately below. I guess this is pretty much how I'm feeling at the moment.

"I think marriage should be legalized for gays and lesbians. I can't think of any reasons, besides religious ones, that would make it "wrong" for gays and lesbians to get married -- and I don't think the government should be using religious justification for its laws."

Sugar and Spice, thanks, in advance, so to speak.

Problem with the religious aspect is that it generally revolves around a lot of quotes from The Bible. A great book, but written in a time and age that I can't relate to -- and the writers couldn't relate to now, either.

So, the little conservative guy on my right shoulder and the little liberal guy on my left shoulder keep yelling at me all at the same time. I'm not quite ready to agree with either of them just yet.

I think marriage should be legalized for gays and lesbians. I can't think of any reasons, besides religious ones, that would make it "wrong" for gays and lesbians to get married -- and I don't think the government should be using religious justification for its laws.

I feel the same way, wether it's call a "marriage" persay or a "committment" I feel that any couple who has chosen to be "life partners" should be eligable for tax, health, investment benefits like any traditional couple. I also feel it should be legally recognized due to the number of homosexual couples that are adopting children. I feel that those children should be looked at by the eyes of the court like any other children would if the parents were to divorce.

Anyways who am I to judge someones lifestyle? I say threat them like everyone else :)

I'm all for gay marriage. I mean, why don't we want these people to be in solid, committed relationships?

I'm also for a churchs right to restrict who they marry though. (some churchs will marry gay couples ... they're far and few but they exists).

I don't like calling it something else at the legal level. Either everything is a "marriage" or its a "civil union". To distinguish between gay and straight couples at the legal level (and label them differently) makes no sense to me.

Sorry, while I have Gay Customers, friends and Brothers, I am still out on this one!:(

Still not sure personally!:confused:

I believe that there should be a legal status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples. I'm not sure it should be called "marriage" as it is for opposite-sex couples, but there needs to be something - so that same-sex couples can get onto each other's health plans, visit each other in the hospital, pay the marriage tax penalty :p etc. And dissolving that relationship should be a similar process to divorce for opposite-sex couples.

I say let then marry. Why is this such a controversial issue?

I don't believe marriage is the sacred institution it once was. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce anyway, so it's resonable to say the same will be for homosexual marriages.

How many men and women have gotten married and said "well if it doesn't work out, I can just get a divorce". If marriage is going to be taken so lightly nowadays, what's the big deal if a same sex couple feels they want to spend the rest of their life together?

If some people are going to be so blase about marriage, then why don't heterosexual couple just have commitment ceremonies? Why is it necessary to get married?

In a commitment ceremony the vows can go something like this: "I pledge to spend the rest of my life with you...or at least until something better comes along".

Man and woman.

Saying what two people do in their own bed room is none of our business is not paying attention to the entire issue. I have no problem with gay relationships and what goes along with them.

As you should know, marriage is not just about sex.

It means many times paying less taxes, being covered by your partner's insurance from their job, etc.

Gay marriage is not an issue between the man and man or woman or woman (or whatever). It effects everyone's pocket book. If it happens, we all will end up with higher insurance premiums and higher taxes (fair to assume that since less tax money and insurance would be collected on account of more married people).

On the other hand, lawyers would enjoy being able to make their pay days off of gay divorces:D

I am fully supportive of same-sex unions. and that the government has no business in our bedrooms. I think the word "marriage" smacks too much of religion, and I don't really like the term too much, even for my own partnership. I think there should be equal benefits--if one of the partners in a gay relationship dies, the survivor has no legal right to their stuff. Big problem.

Are heterosexual unions so tenuous that the creation of gay "marriage" will weaken the centuries-old practice of marriage between a man and woman? :confused:

marriage should be between a man and a woman only.

Let gay people marry.

They should have the right to suffer just like the rest of us.

;)

From the Vancouver Sun
 

This piece appeared in the Vancouver Sun a few days ago, and was written by a heterosexual couple whose wedding is coming up. I thought it was well reasoned, and well written, but then I'm someone who's conflicted over using the word "husband" to describe my partner.

---

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

We're getting married on Oct. 5. Over the past several months, we've been examining the origins and meanings of the most basic structures of weddings, and of marriage itself.

A great many aspects of marriage -- as both an act and a state -- are rooted in patriarchal systems and have mostly to do with the transfer of property (which is exactly what a marriage was, as recently as 1928, when a woman was not yet a person under Canadian law, and was on her wedding day a chattel being transferred from the possession of her father, or nearest male relative, to the possession of her husband). Obviously, this is no longer the spirit in which couples enter into a marriage in Canada, but this history, and the processes of marriage that we have inherited from it, cast long shadows.

Still, we believe in marriage, but we've been working hard to figure out exactly what it means to us.

As we've been sorting through all this, trying to see where we fit in, same-sex marriage is being legalized. Across North America, the question is being asked: "Does gay marriage diminish marriage in general?" Our answer is "no."

In fact, the legalization of gay marriage has given us hope. As we approach our own wedding day, and delve deeper and deeper into the meaning of marriage, we are realizing that our own marriage is strengthened, made more significant, valuable and profound, by the fact that "marriage" in Canada now refers to the bond that exists between any two people who are fortunate enough to be lovingly nurtured by each other, and to the commitment they choose to make to sustain that bond spiritually and legally throughout their lifetimes.

And now we know where we fit in. This is what marriage really is to us: two people who choose to live out the rest of their lives sharing life's sorrows and joys, burdens and gifts.

There's nothing else to hang it on; no practical end or purpose, like propagating the species, or merging households, or continuing a family name. It is a pure, rather naked commitment agreed upon between two human spirits. It has simply to do with love. How courageous, how bold! How fundamentally respectful. And how right.

The legalization of gay marriage allows us to embark upon a marriage that is completely free of those long shadows. It has brought a joyful and unexpected clarity to what we are undertaking. We are proud of Canada, and grateful to be living in this intelligent nation in such an extraordinary time.

Katey Wright and Peter Jorgensen

Vancouver

thank you. i agree with you completely, having lived in a home where my father lives happily with his boyfriend since I was 14, and have a sister who came to us only knowing two mothers (god bless invitrofertilization, she is an amazing woman). it's not fair to deny two men or two women who love each other same same rights and privileges we are entailed to as heterosexuals. why can't that extend to marriage? i see marriages break up every day. i have only seen one truly committed homosexual union ever break up.

Thanks for posting that, Sistermadly. I think that sugarandspice said it well also about how any reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry is somehow based in religion. I strongly believe that there is absolutely no good reason for a country NOT to allow same sex marriage.

Those of you who think that marriage should only be a man and a woman, my one question to you is: why?

I just don't understand why we don't legalize same sex marriage. In my eyes a marriage is a union between two people who are in love and want to be committed to each other. Who are we to deny gays and lesbians this right that heterosexuals have? I guess I'm personally involved. I have friends and an uncle who are gay. I see how this issue effects them.

I dunno. I just feel by denying rights like this we're saying "Heterosexuals are better than homosexuals." This is definitely not the case!

Because of the religious aspect. What other reason is there?

Well that's stupid. My parents got married in a church, but their not religious, does that mean their marriage is any less valid??

My uncle has been married three times. Is last marriage was performed at City hall buy a justice of the peace, is is marriage any less valid.

I'm sorry, but marriage is a crock. Far too many people gett married because they don't know what else to do,a dn 50% of those end in divorce.

So who cares, just let everyone get married. I mean they let 14 year old boys marry 41 year old women. Where's the sense in that?

I see it as being in love, not matter what race or gender you are. And if God made love how can it be bad?

Chris

It seems to me absurd to deny the right of marriage to anyone. It's socially stabilizing. I cannot recall from where I read the article, perhaps Impact Press, but nevertheless good points have been made about this stability. It gives young gay people something to look forward in their lives. Whether you want to believe it or not the simple knowledge that you are legally capable of growing up, meeting someone that you love, and making a vow to be with one another is very comforting. You may not desire to that, but you can. That's huge. When you date people, and I know you do, you consider whether or not it is short term or long term and your relationship is based on it. Long term being lifelong. Of course anyone can stay together forever, but the act of marriage is the bond worth working for.

Besides, someone above mentioned...do not we supposedly live in a country that seperates church & state? I know that Bush cringes at the notion, but that is where we're supposed to be at. I cannot imagine a reason outside of religious belief that could find rightful basis to deny homosexuals marriage. Don't let them do it in your church.....if that's your position....but allow them to do it, and acknowledge it lawfully. Seperate Church & State!

Eloquent!

Actually, I was at two weddings the past two weekends. One was very formal and very Catholic, and the other was in a wedding chapel in Vegas -- very quick and very generic.

Both couples are just as married.

That's part of why I'm conflicted about this. I'm not an Evangelical Christian, but I am an Elder in the mainline Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). But I simply can't take as "gospel" (oh, what a terrible play on words) using quotes from the Bible to condem or prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. There must be some room for conscious thought and deliberation.

If we take the Bible as the literal truth, we would have to stone to death anyone we caught committing audltry. And all of you who are having pre-marital sex are probably going straight to Hell.

I hope God has more trust in us than that.

The context of then and now has changed radically.

I can now say I live in a place where same sex marriage is legal - British Columbia - and the same goes too for our Ontario GCers. There has been no great up upheaval to society in Vancouver, BC or Canada since this provincial legislation was passed. If two people truly love each other, whether it be a man and a woman, two men, or two women - they should be allowed to marry.

Besides in Canada, once you get married you end up paying more tax than before - and you know how much the Canadian government loves collecting taxes (this last part is just a bit of humour and is in no way meant to offend anyone. If Canada does decide to legalize same sex marriage, it is because something like that is inherently Canadian - there is a reason for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

Some religions agree with same-sex marriage.

So, you probably mean 'because of the Christian' aspect... correct me if I'm wrong.

If so, why do we allow non-religious marriages at all?

This is why I'm so surprised at the number of GC folks who are so anti-this. If one are to believe the Bible on a literal level, premarital heterosexual sex is the same as homosexual sex in the sense of the gravity of sin. Are there hypocrites in the house? How can one be okay with heterosexual premarital sex, yet consider gay sex a sin?

Sistermadly, I'm also in the same position. I'm not a big fan of the term "husband," but "partner" sounds so clinical, like we're working at a law firm together :p

Edited to make it easier for the masses to digest.

You're assuming every single GCer has participated in pre-marital sex. I'm sure there are plenty who haven't.

Did I say that? No... I know there are people who are abstaining.

Please don't tell me what I'm assuming.

My point still stands.

Then maybe you misworded it, because when I go back and read it again a few times, it still looks like you're saying people are hypocrites because they are okay with premarital sex and no homosexual sex.

Your point doesn't quite stand here.

Sigh....Christianity has gotten my goat for soooo many years now. I guess maybe I'm too liberal or whatnot, but who says religion has to control everything we do in this country? I might be going out on a limb for this, but why do we take some things in the Bible so darn literally but other things we just "skip" over?

Like I said before...
Love is love. End of story.

Maybe I will go to Hell, maybe I won't, but I've always believed God to be an all-loving being. At least this is what I was grown up to believe!

I fixed it, hopefully it will be easier for you to understand.

Back to the topic at hand! :D

Munchkin, I never understood this reasoning. However, people used biblical passages to justify the enslavement of Africans, and to justify why women shouldn't be preachers/ministers. There are more than a few denominations who have completely rescinded their previous positions on these issues, and I think it's just a matter of time before this last domino falls.

Hypocrisy is a tricky thing -- it's hard to see when you're looking from the inside out.

I suppose this would be a bad time to mention that my partner (:p ) and I were married by a lesbian feminist buddhist minister. Heh.

Here's my anwser to the situation:

Make governmental unions okay for all; however, make it harder to get married and easier to get divorced.

Age Restrictions:
You must be this old to get married,
20 with parental consent (and at least have an associates degree) 25 without
in case of pregnancy the legal guardianship of the child is to be split jointly between the legal guardians of the minors until age 20 is reached by the oldest party. If one of the parties is under the age of 20 and one over the age of 20 the party over the age of 20 is guilty of statutory rape and is ineligible to be married before the age of 40 and also has no parental rights to this child and a vasectomy/tube tying will be performed within one week of the paternity testing.

Educational Requirements (for non-handicaped individuals)
High School Diploma or GED required for those 25 and older (for those under 25 an associates is required)

Criminal Background:
Marriage may not be entered into by anyone being party to any of the following crimes:

DUI, murder, aggrivated anything, adultery (in case you actually make it through all of this and the divorce to try again) Drug trafficing, poaching of endangered species, prostitution.


I am going to have to come back to this I am getting sleepy. Ruling the world is tough! (Plese understand that this entire post is for entertainment (specifically my entertainment) purposes only, and yes I know I am unable to spell which should take away my marital rights.


:D

Perhaps "hypocrite" was too strong a word. I just would prefer others to be as introspective before speaking as I am.

People used biblical passages to justify the anti-miscegenation laws that were in place before 1967, too--both blacks and whites. Meanwhile, we all know what was going on behind closed doors before 1865. So, when someone hides behind the Bible to justify their bigotry, I'm more than a little wary. :)

Three2Tango, your post cracked me up. :p

Ditto.

GW BUSH

UGGHH. Well that figures. I greatly dislike that man!

Several resons. Some straight people still believe that you can turn someone gay. Thats why the anty gay marrage laws are always termed "Defense of Marrage". Some people in this day and age still believe that homosexuality is a choice and and that some marrage is gonna get broken up because a straight woman is good friends with a lesbian and is gonna decide to all the sudden gonna swing that way and abandon her family. Like the reality is that she was unhappy all along and only got married becasue she thought that was what she had to do to have a family and be "happy".

Also a lot of the people apparently polled think that it somehow cheapens their marrages. The farmer and his wife in the midwest only see gay images that reflect the extremes of gay society. The parades and the drag, dykes on bikes and wierd ass cultural garb. They dont see the normal, everyday hard working gay americans and gay canadians who are in their midsts just trying to make a living and be happy and live their lives and are totally "normal acting". The farmer and his wife dont want someone who acts all extreme to have the same blessing on their unions becasue it seems so bizzare, so foriegn.

I have a cousin who is lezbian and why shouldnt she be able to spend her life in a committed relationshp to someone she loves?

I support it. It has nothing to do with religion. Sure, its fundamentally about love. But most importantly, its about equality. Why shouldnt all members of our society be afforded the same rights and responsibilities? Isnt that what equal opportunity under the law is all about? In the US we've made it a point to extend the basic fundamental rights to all members of our society, except one group. Gays are the last group its ok, legally to descriminate against. And thats just not right, or fair. As for "civil unions" It should be all or nothing. Didnt we eliminate "seperate but UNequal" about 40 years ago? Its a shame were still not past that. Shame on us, indeed.