usvi-on-line
Iowa is a surprising place
Call it what you want. A right a benefit. I am not talking in legal, technical terms. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv. Parse words all you want, but in my view a right is something you can do because you are straight that someone else can not do because they are gay.
Change the subject all you want, but you are still not willing to step up and say what it is that you are SO opposed to about legally recognized same sex marriage. That to me is telling. If you truly are comfortable in your support or opposition of something you should be able to articulate your reasoning. We all know you to be extremely articulate and a well thought out individual. To me that you won't outline the reasons for your oppositive speaks volumes.
I guess back in the 60s having a white fountain and a "colored" fountain technically meant that all people had the same "right" or "benefit" of public drinking water but we all see that the arrangement was surely not equal.
I for one hope the Republicans keep listening to Cheney who sees no need to moderate the party.
Change the subject all you want, but you are still not willing to step up and say what it is that you are SO opposed to about legally recognized same sex marriage. That to me is telling. If you truly are comfortable in your support or opposition of something you should be able to articulate your reasoning. We all know you to be extremely articulate and a well thought out individual. To me that you won't outline the reasons for your oppositive speaks volumes.
I guess back in the 60s having a white fountain and a "colored" fountain technically meant that all people had the same "right" or "benefit" of public drinking water but we all see that the arrangement was surely not equal.
I for one hope the Republicans keep listening to Cheney who sees no need to moderate the party.
-
toes in the sand
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:21 pm
Iowa is great place but not because of a court ruling.
cypress, you may be correct about social security benefits. I do not know for sure. But wouldn't it be simplier to change the social security regulations to accomodate same sex unions than change a tradition that is ingrained in our culture, a change so many find offensive?
Flip, your assumption that if my view is not seated in a deep religious belief then I am a homophobe is narrow minded. Religion is only a part of the things I hold dear. You can believe me a homophobe but you would be greatly mistaken.
I have an aquaintance who purchased an expensive home. They cannot make their house payments because their ARM increased. They believe that they should be able to own this big home because their neighbors have one. They want the rules changed because they really like living like their neighbors. Oh wait...that would be ludicrous and unfair to those who have been living by rules established long ago.
I am color blind. I see orange and red as the same color sometimes. I did not choose to be color blind. I cannot choose not to be color blind. But I would like to redefine the word orange to mean red. If you oppose this redefinition you are a colorblind-o-phobe.
cypress, you may be correct about social security benefits. I do not know for sure. But wouldn't it be simplier to change the social security regulations to accomodate same sex unions than change a tradition that is ingrained in our culture, a change so many find offensive?
Flip, your assumption that if my view is not seated in a deep religious belief then I am a homophobe is narrow minded. Religion is only a part of the things I hold dear. You can believe me a homophobe but you would be greatly mistaken.
I have an aquaintance who purchased an expensive home. They cannot make their house payments because their ARM increased. They believe that they should be able to own this big home because their neighbors have one. They want the rules changed because they really like living like their neighbors. Oh wait...that would be ludicrous and unfair to those who have been living by rules established long ago.
I am color blind. I see orange and red as the same color sometimes. I did not choose to be color blind. I cannot choose not to be color blind. But I would like to redefine the word orange to mean red. If you oppose this redefinition you are a colorblind-o-phobe.
"got a drink in my hand and my toes in the sand"
Why can't two consenting adults, regardless of gender choose to spend their lives with one another and have that choice recognized by law?
In VA we have a constitutional amendment offically recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman. Legislators even went so far as to pass legislation preventing certain contracts between adults of the same gender that would allow someone to make medical and financial decisons for another person.
Unfortunately their sloppy legislation affected a whole segment of the population unintentionally: like me and my Mom. My Mom is a widow and I am her advocate under medical directives as well as in case she is mentally incapacitated. The way the law was written it totally made these documents USELESS because we were both female.
Fortunately the Governor fixed it before it became law -- but what a joke!
VA is doing everything possible to not only deny the right for two people of the same sex to marry (or have a civil union) and on top of that to prevent them from protecting themselves legally or allowing their partner to make medical decisons for them. Ridiculous.
Lest you think Virginia is a great state for doing this, please Google the term "Massive Resistance" when Virginia showed it's ass by declaring to the Supreme Court and the rest of the U.S. that our public schools would not be integrated and instead decided to SHUT THEM DOWN preventing all children from going to school for weeks.
Oh and VA was also a BIG proponent of the "poll tax" preventing minorities from actually VOTING.
So lets just say that Virginia, while being a state I love, has had its share of historical jackass moments.
A long time mentor of mine has been with his partner for over 30 years. They lived in VA for most of their adult lives. They are very well off and because of VA's actions decided to take their tax dollars and retire elsewhere.
To the contrary, when my husband and I married nearly 11 years ago I worked in an office with 4 other women. We all got married right around the same time. I worked for a VERY conservative lobbying organization-- maybe you've heard of it? The National Rifle Association? Well anyway, we all got married around the same time. And now, every one of them is divorced and on their second or in once case THIRD marriage.
When they were married they and their spouses had access to health care, life insurance, tax benefits and about 1,400 other rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples becasue they were married.
Meanwhile two men who have been committed to one another and in a loving and monogamous relationship for 30+ years would LOVE to be married in the eyes of the law but can't be.
Where's the justice in that?
I'm not saying that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples -- but we should have a mechanism in place that allows same sex couples to make a life long commitment in the eyes of the law like heterosexual couples do.
Homosexual couples marrying in no way threatens me, my family or my choices any more than my marriage affects anyone elses.
I am continually in awe of the fact that two people in this universe can find one another and fall in love and make the amazing commitment to love and support another human being for the rest of their lives. This concept is phenomenal to me.
That kind of commitment is to be cherished and supported regardless of which two consenting adults are involved. It deserves our support and attention.
The world can only be a better place when this kind of love and commitment is cherished regardless of the fact that one is hetero- or homo-sexual.
In VA we have a constitutional amendment offically recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman. Legislators even went so far as to pass legislation preventing certain contracts between adults of the same gender that would allow someone to make medical and financial decisons for another person.
Unfortunately their sloppy legislation affected a whole segment of the population unintentionally: like me and my Mom. My Mom is a widow and I am her advocate under medical directives as well as in case she is mentally incapacitated. The way the law was written it totally made these documents USELESS because we were both female.
Fortunately the Governor fixed it before it became law -- but what a joke!
VA is doing everything possible to not only deny the right for two people of the same sex to marry (or have a civil union) and on top of that to prevent them from protecting themselves legally or allowing their partner to make medical decisons for them. Ridiculous.
Lest you think Virginia is a great state for doing this, please Google the term "Massive Resistance" when Virginia showed it's ass by declaring to the Supreme Court and the rest of the U.S. that our public schools would not be integrated and instead decided to SHUT THEM DOWN preventing all children from going to school for weeks.
Oh and VA was also a BIG proponent of the "poll tax" preventing minorities from actually VOTING.
So lets just say that Virginia, while being a state I love, has had its share of historical jackass moments.
A long time mentor of mine has been with his partner for over 30 years. They lived in VA for most of their adult lives. They are very well off and because of VA's actions decided to take their tax dollars and retire elsewhere.
To the contrary, when my husband and I married nearly 11 years ago I worked in an office with 4 other women. We all got married right around the same time. I worked for a VERY conservative lobbying organization-- maybe you've heard of it? The National Rifle Association? Well anyway, we all got married around the same time. And now, every one of them is divorced and on their second or in once case THIRD marriage.
When they were married they and their spouses had access to health care, life insurance, tax benefits and about 1,400 other rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples becasue they were married.
Meanwhile two men who have been committed to one another and in a loving and monogamous relationship for 30+ years would LOVE to be married in the eyes of the law but can't be.
Where's the justice in that?
I'm not saying that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples -- but we should have a mechanism in place that allows same sex couples to make a life long commitment in the eyes of the law like heterosexual couples do.
Homosexual couples marrying in no way threatens me, my family or my choices any more than my marriage affects anyone elses.
I am continually in awe of the fact that two people in this universe can find one another and fall in love and make the amazing commitment to love and support another human being for the rest of their lives. This concept is phenomenal to me.
That kind of commitment is to be cherished and supported regardless of which two consenting adults are involved. It deserves our support and attention.
The world can only be a better place when this kind of love and commitment is cherished regardless of the fact that one is hetero- or homo-sexual.
*Another fine scatterbrained production
-
cypressgirl
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:42 pm
- Location: houston
Gromit wrote:Why can't two consenting adults, regardless of gender choose to spend their lives with one another and have that choice recognized by law?
In VA we have a constitutional amendment offically recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman. Legislators even went so far as to pass legislation preventing certain contracts between adults of the same gender that would allow someone to make medical and financial decisons for another person.
Unfortunately their sloppy legislation affected a whole segment of the population unintentionally: like me and my Mom. My Mom is a widow and I am her advocate under medical directives as well as in case she is mentally incapacitated. The way the law was written it totally made these documents USELESS because we were both female.
Fortunately the Governor fixed it before it became law -- but what a joke!
VA is doing everything possible to not only deny the right for two people of the same sex to marry (or have a civil union) and on top of that to prevent them from protecting themselves legally or allowing their partner to make medical decisons for them. Ridiculous.
Lest you think Virginia is a great state for doing this, please Google the term "Massive Resistance" when Virginia showed it's ass by declaring to the Supreme Court and the rest of the U.S. that our public schools would not be integrated and instead decided to SHUT THEM DOWN preventing all children from going to school for weeks.
Oh and VA was also a BIG proponent of the "poll tax" preventing minorities from actually VOTING.
So lets just say that Virginia, while being a state I love, has had its share of historical jackass moments.
A long time mentor of mine has been with his partner for over 30 years. They lived in VA for most of their adult lives. They are very well off and because of VA's actions decided to take their tax dollars and retire elsewhere.
To the contrary, when my husband and I married nearly 11 years ago I worked in an office with 4 other women. We all got married right around the same time. I worked for a VERY conservative lobbying organization-- maybe you've heard of it? The National Rifle Association? Well anyway, we all got married around the same time. And now, every one of them is divorced and on their second or in once case THIRD marriage.
When they were married they and their spouses had access to health care, life insurance, tax benefits and about 1,400 other rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples becasue they were married.
Meanwhile two men who have been committed to one another and in a loving and monogamous relationship for 30+ years would LOVE to be married in the eyes of the law but can't be.
Where's the justice in that?
I'm not saying that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples -- but we should have a mechanism in place that allows same sex couples to make a life long commitment in the eyes of the law like heterosexual couples do.
Homosexual couples marrying in no way threatens me, my family or my choices any more than my marriage affects anyone elses.
I am continually in awe of the fact that two people in this universe can find one another and fall in love and make the amazing commitment to love and support another human being for the rest of their lives. This concept is phenomenal to me.
That kind of commitment is to be cherished and supported regardless of which two consenting adults are involved. It deserves our support and attention.
The world can only be a better place when this kind of love and commitment is cherished regardless of the fact that one is hetero- or homo-sexual.
Thank God, after reading your post, I got a good dose of Ann Colter on Hannity and I feel sane again.
You're an odd duck, SJ. Just a day or two ago you posted that you found this subject boring, and yet here you are.
Saying that gays and lesbians are not religious is just so off the wall. It's silly, really. You actually don't have any contact with any gays or lesbians, do you? They're pretty diverse. Not a monolithic group at all. Quite similar to heterosexuals in that regard. Blanket statements are bound to be inaccurate.
I don't know if it's the sign that a ship has set sail, but something certainly has changed in the last five years and it looks like more change is coming. I think that Americans like to be fair and are realizing that they haven't been. I think that the simple, but fundamental question that Flip posed is at the heart of the issue:
Why shouldn't a same sex couple be able to marry? Really. Why not?
As for gays and lesbians moving to other states. That also is silly. I'd imagine that many of them are quite satisfied living where they do and would prefer to be able to get married there. It's the community where they live, belong, have roots, pay taxes. And really, why shouldn't they be able to? How can anyone really justify permitting marriage for some couples, but only civil unions for others? It's interesting that no one thought of the civil union dodge when anti-miscegenation laws were being challenged. Perhaps that was more rooted in really wanting to prevent interracial relationships, so the civil union would have undermined the real intent.
Deep social change freaks a lot of people out. But in time it seems incredible that it was ever otherwise.
Saying that gays and lesbians are not religious is just so off the wall. It's silly, really. You actually don't have any contact with any gays or lesbians, do you? They're pretty diverse. Not a monolithic group at all. Quite similar to heterosexuals in that regard. Blanket statements are bound to be inaccurate.
I don't know if it's the sign that a ship has set sail, but something certainly has changed in the last five years and it looks like more change is coming. I think that Americans like to be fair and are realizing that they haven't been. I think that the simple, but fundamental question that Flip posed is at the heart of the issue:
Why shouldn't a same sex couple be able to marry? Really. Why not?
As for gays and lesbians moving to other states. That also is silly. I'd imagine that many of them are quite satisfied living where they do and would prefer to be able to get married there. It's the community where they live, belong, have roots, pay taxes. And really, why shouldn't they be able to? How can anyone really justify permitting marriage for some couples, but only civil unions for others? It's interesting that no one thought of the civil union dodge when anti-miscegenation laws were being challenged. Perhaps that was more rooted in really wanting to prevent interracial relationships, so the civil union would have undermined the real intent.
Deep social change freaks a lot of people out. But in time it seems incredible that it was ever otherwise.
SJ said:
"Social change is great when a majority of people want the change to happen."
If we had considered treating discrimination based on race, or gender, as merely "social change" that is subject to the feelings of the majority, it might never have happened (or at least happened as quickly). Sometimes courts move ahead of public opinion, because they are looking at fundamental fairness issues, not just gauging public opinion. The Iowa Supreme Court clearly treated this as an issue of fundamental rights. It is interesting to me that most of the Iowa Supreme Court justices are male, married, have kids, go to church, and live in smaller communities in Iowa. The justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by a Republican governor (as were two other justices who joined in the opinion).
On a more personal level, as the father of a gay daughter who we love very much, we think the decision is right on.
"Social change is great when a majority of people want the change to happen."
If we had considered treating discrimination based on race, or gender, as merely "social change" that is subject to the feelings of the majority, it might never have happened (or at least happened as quickly). Sometimes courts move ahead of public opinion, because they are looking at fundamental fairness issues, not just gauging public opinion. The Iowa Supreme Court clearly treated this as an issue of fundamental rights. It is interesting to me that most of the Iowa Supreme Court justices are male, married, have kids, go to church, and live in smaller communities in Iowa. The justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by a Republican governor (as were two other justices who joined in the opinion).
On a more personal level, as the father of a gay daughter who we love very much, we think the decision is right on.
---Jim
I think my question is still the one going unanswered like Lex said, Why shouldn't a same sex couple be able to marry just like any other couple, with all the rights and responsiblilities that brings.
Furthermore, WHY do you care who a consenting adult decides to legally commit themselves to?
Further, though I am not religious, I was not forbidden to marry my husband. Again, chuches should be able to marry whoever they want, but our states and our federal government should not be denying RIGHTS and benefits to a subset of the population based on their sexual orientation. PERIOD.
It is as wrong as denying the vote to women or minorities was. It is as wrong as separate but equal eductation was. It is as wrong as any race based or gender based discrimination was and is.
Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but the days of this being an issue are numbered. Can you even fathom that just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in Virginia? 40 years. I am not saying it will happen overnight but the tide is turning. Yes, the majority of the country may still be uncomfortable with same sex marriage, but there is a shift, especially among young people.
Some interesting fact because I know you like them so much: In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it. In 1967, about 72% were still opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time!!!! 1991!
The beauty of America is that though it may take time and incremental steps but eventually we get there.
Furthermore, WHY do you care who a consenting adult decides to legally commit themselves to?
Further, though I am not religious, I was not forbidden to marry my husband. Again, chuches should be able to marry whoever they want, but our states and our federal government should not be denying RIGHTS and benefits to a subset of the population based on their sexual orientation. PERIOD.
It is as wrong as denying the vote to women or minorities was. It is as wrong as separate but equal eductation was. It is as wrong as any race based or gender based discrimination was and is.
Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but the days of this being an issue are numbered. Can you even fathom that just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in Virginia? 40 years. I am not saying it will happen overnight but the tide is turning. Yes, the majority of the country may still be uncomfortable with same sex marriage, but there is a shift, especially among young people.
Some interesting fact because I know you like them so much: In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it. In 1967, about 72% were still opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time!!!! 1991!
The beauty of America is that though it may take time and incremental steps but eventually we get there.