MA court ruling on gay marriage ban...your thoughts?

[lionlove]

I'm proud of my state.

edited to add: daoine, I like your idea. I've seen the separation of "union" and "marriage" work in other countries. It allows couples to define marriage according to their own religious tradition but also gives all families the same rights and responsibilities under the law.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by daoine
..Now, if we could only do something about our opposing governor...

Actually, it's not just the governor who's against it. Many of the Democratic leaders in the state, including the Almighty Finneran have come out against it; Speaker Finneran is dead set against it in fact.

[daoine]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Actually, it's not just the governor who's against it. Many of the Democratic leaders in the state, including the Almighty Finneran have come out against it; Speaker Finneran is dead set against it in fact.

*Sigh* I know. I'm worried about the backlash legislation.

But I honestly wonder, if it was put to a vote in Mass., what the outcome would be. It appears that there's significantly more support than not (although that could be because I self select and tend to read more liberal sources)

On a side note, Cambridge (go Cambridge!) already has a proposition to skip the 180 days and start issuing licenses pronto. I think it comes up Monday...

[lauralaylin]

Can I just say that I'm *so* happy about this. It's about time. And go Cambridge! I'm curious to see how many there are on Monday.

[GPhiLlama]

YAY! It's finally happening!

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by 33girl
...on the other side of the coin, non-religious people who would rather not call it that because of religious implications.

Like me. I know that I want the legal recognition of a marriage (such as being on my partner's insurance and being his next of kin in case of an emergency), but I personally don't need a priest/rabbi/chanting Buddhist monk to legitimize my partnership. My parents obviously felt the same way--they were married in a civil ceremony as well.

I think the negative sentiment stems from religious-based issues, and not legal.

[damasa]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Actually, it's not just the governor who's against it. Many of the Democratic leaders in the state, including the Almighty Finneran have come out against it; Speaker Finneran is dead set against it in fact.

But honestly I think it is more of a religious thing as opposed to a Republican/Democrat issue.

Most religious people that I know oppose gay marriage and they even oppose the thought of gay people as a whole.

Sure, some Democrats are highly religious and some Republicans aren't, I think that this is an issue that is sometimes overlooked.

I think this is a great thing and I hope it serves as a model for other states.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by damasa
But honestly I think it is more of a religious thing as opposed to a Republican/Democrat issue.

Most religious people that I know oppose gay marriage and they even oppose the thought of gay people as a whole.

Sure, some Democrats are highly religious and some Republicans aren't, I think that this is an issue that is sometimes overlooked.

I think this is a great thing and I hope it serves as a model for other states.

It's definitely more of a moral issue - I was just pointing out that those arguing against it were on both sides of the political fence.

I think this is becoming one of those issues, like the death penalty and abortion that is going beyond political lines. Just my opinion.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by KSigkid
It's definitely more of a moral issue - I was just pointing out that those arguing against it were on both sides of the political fence.

I think this is becoming one of those issues, like the death penalty and abortion that is going beyond political lines. Just my opinion.

I think you're right about this. Californians voted on a gay marriage proposition in 2000. Over 60% of CA voters voted to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Gay marriage was rejected. The state legislature recently sidestepped the will of the people, as they often do here in CA, and enacted recognition of gay unions this past September. Our ousted governor signed the bill. As it stands now, gay unions will be recognized in 2005, but the issue will more than likely be defeated again when presented to the voters. CA is by no means a conservative state, but historically, it has rejected the idea of gay marriage. Personally I am not opposed to the idea of gay unions, but I do believe the issue should be left to the people, not to the courts.

[damasa]

Originally posted by KSigkid
It's definitely more of a moral issue - I was just pointing out that those arguing against it were on both sides of the political fence.

I think this is becoming one of those issues, like the death penalty and abortion that is going beyond political lines. Just my opinion.

Oh, I didn't mean to make it look like I was against you bro because I'm not.

And I agree, it is becoming one of those issues and fast.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by KSigkid

I think this is becoming one of those issues, like the death penalty and abortion that is going beyond political lines. Just my opinion.

You are right about this (or at least I think so). People, regardless of their party affiliation have their own seperate feelings on this.

[OUlioness01]

i'm going to be so undemocratic and so unPC it's shocking.

i believe that as long as two people support making a marriage or union (whatever you prefer to call in under the eyes of the law) between two people, no matter their gender than those uinons/marriages should be legal. otherwise we are denying two people the right that every other person in this country has. whatever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness????? I think all of those apply here.

[GeekyPenguin]

I think the idea of seperating "marraige" and "union" is a really good one. I was raised to believe that "marriage" is the sacrament a man and a woman commit with God. I like to tease my parents that they aren't really married because they got married by a Justice of the Peace, not a priest. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with gay unions. I think all the states should just rename it to a "Civil Union License" or a "Partnership License" and let any human beings over the age of consent get one. That way people who want to be married in a church can be, and people who want to be partners can be.

I personally am really fed up with the attitudes of some people opposed to this. I just don't like the idea that you want to dictate what other people do in their homes. God doesn't tell you to tell other people what to do in the bedroom, so why are you?

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin

I personally am really fed up with the attitudes of some people opposed to this. I just don't like the idea that you want to dictate what other people do in their homes. God doesn't tell you to tell other people what to do in the bedroom, so why are you?

It's because God tells them what they can do in the bedroom and they're sick of gay people not having to follow any of the rules.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
I think the idea of seperating "marraige" and "union" is a really good one. I was raised to believe that "marriage" is the sacrament a man and a woman commit with God. I like to tease my parents that they aren't really married because they got married by a Justice of the Peace, not a priest. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with gay unions. I think all the states should just rename it to a "Civil Union License" or a "Partnership License" and let any human beings over the age of consent get one. That way people who want to be married in a church can be, and people who want to be partners can be.

I personally am really fed up with the attitudes of some people opposed to this. I just don't like the idea that you want to dictate what other people do in their homes. God doesn't tell you to tell other people what to do in the bedroom, so why are you?

The debate over "Marriage" and "Union" was exactly what happened up here in Canada. The major objections from the various Church members (other than rejecting to the whole thing on religious grounds) was over this very issue. If the government had designated it as a "Civil Union", and that both marriages and unions were equal in the eyes of the law, then it would have gone over much more peacefully with the religious community.