Word for the Day: Homogamy

Saw that on "Slate" this morning.

Well, my home state has two ballot measures possibly coming up in November. One bans gay marriage. The other establishes civil unions for same-sex couples with most of the state benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

The interesting thing is - both might just pass.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10871

It seems for a lot of people, the big mistake in gay rights was using the word "marriage."

No, the big mistake for the Federal Government was in trying to use the word "marriage". Allowing gays civil unions, but not marriages, is OK only if you go along with the seperate but equal theory.

I'm all for gay marriage.
Why can't they get to suffer like heterosexuals.

Its the "most" part that's the problem. Make it the same for everyone regardless of sexual orientation and I don't give a f*ck what you call it.

If "marriage" is a religious institution, then do away with state sanctioning of it completely. Civil unions for all.

We'll just have to see if we can't get the state legislature to pass a law stating that for purposes of the law, a marriage is a civil union and a civil union is a marriage.

Seconded.
==Chris

Thirded.

In the UK, one can be married in a non religious ceremony, in a registry office, by a Govt Registrar.
So over here, marriage isnt necessarily a religious institution.

Same here... but not everyone can walk into city hall for that ceremony. If the government recognizes civil unions and grants benefits based on those unions, they need to open the doors and let everyone in.

I agree entirely Vivi

I sure do hope all these straight people find it in their hearts to grant me some rights similar to theirs.

I wonder if I licked their shoes or cleaned their yards if it would help.

Please straight people, throw poor little faggots like me a bone.

As I see it Neehai, its not a question of you being granted rights by a gracious straight community, but a homophobic straight community denying you your basic human rights.

bwahahaha! My feelings exactly

"Seperate but equal" aside, I do wonder if we need to take a more incremental approach. What these polls point up to me is that there's still a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on among people who are otherwise willing to have civil rights cover all citizens, including gays. That's why I'll advocate for the civil union ballot issue.

If we can keep a Democratic legislation in place here, maybe we'll be able to get more and more statutes to cover both civil unions and marriages, until there isn't a difference. The incremental approach has worked for anti-smoking campaigns in changing the culture where Prohibition of alcohol bit off more than it could chew.

My problem with the civil union measure is that I don't want to feel like I'm a special sub-class, and calling my union different just 'cause you don't like who I'm doing it with accomplishes that. As long as we use even different language to describe it they're not equal.

It needs to be marriage to be equal (but baby steps in the political arena perhaps?) but to not have equal benefits to marriage? thats just WRONG.

Granted, but would you vote against a measure going in the direction we want just because it doesn't go the whole distance?

Back in high school, no one had even heard of people like me. Huge amounts of progress has been made in the past few decades, and I don't think it ought to be derailed just because of this backlash against recognizing gay marriage.

Edit: I ought to rephrase that. In my high school, it seemed that no one had even heard of people like me.

I'm honestly not sure. It would be really difficult for me, because I don't like having to get special laws - even ones that are good for me- just because of who I am.

I here with you Lucifer. I'd love nothing more than to stand up for my bother at his wedding to his long time partner.

.

I have friends in Honduras who had two ceremonies: one was the civil ceremony, where they dotted the i's and crossed the t's and did the civil, legal thing. The other was a religious service, where they did the in the eyes of god thing. Two different services, two different meanings.

I believe if the government is going to provide legal benefits to "married" couples, they should grant any two consenting adults the right of a civil union. All couples, if they want to take advantage of these government granted benefits, would have to join in a civil union, a ceremony separate and distinct from any religious ceremony.

If a couple wants to have a spiritual/religious ceremony in addition, cool.

If a couple only wants to have a spiritual/religious ceremony, cool, too -- but they don't get the government benefits.

Exactly. There would even be couples who would want to be joined for legal reasons, but not for romantic/sexual ones, and therefore wouldn't want to be "married". Civil unions should be the governmental term for everyone, marriage the religious/spiritual term.

Frankly, I think this is a better option for all parties - but whatever is offered, it should be offered to everyone equally. It should not matter the sex of the partner that you choose.

.

Hmm, this also got me thinking about common law marriage... would those rules apply to civil unions?

Ooh, checking my list I see that Colorado is one of the few states that still recognises common law marriage.

Common-law marriages are recognized in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

Shut up! If they hear you they might get mad and take away my right to vote ro healthcare ot even to hold a job.

This is serious. Whatever the majority decides is a right for me, that is what I get.

When did we get to vote on marriage for straight people? Why are my civil rights up for a vote but not other people's?