Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Jedah Doma]

If this was the work of a benevolent mod to filter all of eggbert's responses into ellipses, thank you.

Nah it was me. I just decided it was best left unsaid.

 

[bokmeow]

.........................

Damn, 2 in a row. Thank you Neo Gumby or Judge Dredd or whoever it was.

 

[evil wasabi]

In my opinion, and from a legal standpoint, this has nothing to do with gays being denied rights AT ALL but rather that gays have no respect for tradition, want to change things so that they are seen as normal, because people always want what they can't have. Once this becomes mainstream, gays will look for the next step, such as legally being able to dictate fashion and outlawing all levis jeans.

Most any "right" afforded by marriage can be afforded by contract as well. Want to set up a realestate title to be a tenancy by the entirety without being married? Set it up in contract that the other party cannot sell their interest without the consent of the other. Want to make sure that all your property goes to your gay lover upon your death? Write a fucking will.

Yeah, these are all extra steps, but so is marriage, divorce, etc. It's really not a big deal to contractually set these things up. And the more it happens, the more cheap it gets.

This is not like racial integration, where traditionally whites were separate from blacks, because blacks had no recourse to afford themselves the same rights as whites. Gays have the rights, but they weren't satisfied with that - they wanted to fuck with the entire system.

Thus I offer no kudos to the states that are recognizing gay marriage. States should stand up to challenges and offer sensible solutions that won't spit in the face of non gays and tradition.

Well, from a legal standpoint, a civil union is the same as a marriage isn't it? So why does it make headlines if a state "legalizes" gay marriage? I wouldn't doubt that Vermont already had civil unions, so what has really changed?

You guys know that I tend to fall on the conservative side most of the time, but I'm not against gay marriage. If two people want to get married, it's none of my business. But it's this whole "gay rights" issue that I think is a little weird. When civil unions are factored in, they have the same rights as straight people. It might be called something different, but it's the same as a legal marriage, isn't it?

It seems like there's a subsection of militant gays that apparently think that the name "civil union" makes it sound less legitimate, so "gay marriage" needs to be legalized. It's like they feel insecure, so they need to push their relationship into the faces of others, instead of just being a happy couple (basically the old "we're here, we're queer, so get used to it" attitude).

That's why traditionalists take issue with comments like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's "it's coming, whether you like it or not!" It's the arrogance of the whole movement, not homophobic hatred.

 

[Jedah Doma]

Damn, 2 in a row. Thank you Neo Gumby or Judge Dredd or whoever it was.

Kids, this is what you do all day when you have four degrees and make $30,000 a year in your social worker occupation.

I would say study harder but you see where it got Bokmeow.

 

[norton9478]

Most any "right" afforded by marriage can be afforded by contract as well. Want to set up a realestate title to be a tenancy by the entirety without being married? Set it up in contract that the other party cannot sell their interest without the consent of the other. Want to make sure that all your property goes to your gay lover upon your death? Write a fucking will.

Yeah, these are all extra steps, but so is marriage, divorce, etc. It's really not a big deal to contractually set these things up. And the more it happens, the more cheap it gets.

What about the right to not have to testify against your partner in court?

 

[Marek]

In my opinion, and from a legal standpoint, this has nothing to do with gays being denied rights AT ALL but rather that gays have no respect for tradition, want to change things so that they are seen as normal, because people always want what they can't have. Once this becomes mainstream, gays will look for the next step, such as legally being able to dictate fashion and outlawing all levis jeans.

Most any "right" afforded by marriage can be afforded by contract as well. Want to set up a realestate title to be a tenancy by the entirety without being married? Set it up in contract that the other party cannot sell their interest without the consent of the other. Want to make sure that all your property goes to your gay lover upon your death? Write a fucking will.

Yeah, these are all extra steps, but so is marriage, divorce, etc. It's really not a big deal to contractually set these things up. And the more it happens, the more cheap it gets.

This is not like racial integration, where traditionally whites were separate from blacks, because blacks had no recourse to afford themselves the same rights as whites. Gays have the rights, but they weren't satisfied with that - they wanted to fuck with the entire system.

Thus I offer no kudos to the states that are recognizing gay marriage. States should stand up to challenges and offer sensible solutions that won't spit in the face of non gays and tradition.

Granted you did say "most any right", but the problem in my mind is that the most important of those rights is the hardest one to ensure without granting gay people the arbitrary legal title of 'married'.

I am referring to deathbed visitation. How do you suppose to fix that? This is a right that I consider basic and a fundamental inalienable right of all people. If you love someone and they are dying you have the right to see them, wish them off, whatever.

I just dont see how you can cop the attitude that marriage is nothing more than rights granted by a contract (I agree with this), and simultaneously say that they have no respect for tradition and that they are trying to change the system. Fuck tradition. You once bragged about throwing Arab 'tradition' back in their faces (something about eating food in public in Dubai I think) and yet you defend this 'tradition' of marriage. A tradition that is thoroughly empty on the nationwide scale. Look at our divorce rate, at the catty competitive bullshit of marriage (Bride Wars? Bridezilla? Whose Wedding is it Anyway?) Is that traditional to you?

They have every right to change a system that has denied their existence, marginalized the demographic, and profitted off of anti-gay discrimination and political posturing.

 

[evil wasabi]

What about the right to not have to testify against your partner in court?

sign an NDA, along with the other legal documents. Takes a few seconds to download, print, and sign. Notarization is free at your local bank.

 

[jro]

Kids, this is what you do all day when you have four degrees and make $30,000 a year in your social worker occupation.

I would say study harder but you see where it got Bokmeow.

So you're saying that Bokmeow's Princeton education is completely worthless, and that your bigoted viewpoints are superior?

Great argument!

 

[evil wasabi]

Granted you did say "most any right", but the problem in my mind is that the most important of those rights is the hardest one to ensure without granting gay people the arbitrary legal title of 'married'.

I am referring to deathbed visitation. How do you suppose to fix that? This is a right that I consider basic and a fundamental inalienable right of all people. If you love someone and they are dying you have the right to see them, wish them off, whatever.

I just dont see how you can cop the attitude that marriage is nothing more than rights granted by a contract (I agree with this), and simultaneously say that they have no respect for tradition and that they are trying to change the system. Fuck tradition. You once bragged about throwing Arab 'tradition' back in their faces (something about eating food in public in Dubai I think) and yet you defend this 'tradition' of marriage. A tradition that is thoroughly empty on the nationwide scale. Look at our divorce rate, at the catty competitive bullshit of marriage (Bride Wars? Bridezilla? Whose Wedding is it Anyway?) Is that traditional to you?

They have every right to change a system that has denied their existence, marginalized, and profitted off of anti-gay discrimination and political posturing.

I freely admit that I have no respect for many people or tradition, but I empathize with those who complain about people like me, and gays. Hell, I empathize with gays too, but I don't see their gripe as valid.

Deathbed visitation is one of the only rights they cannot grant themselves by contract, but it's also one that the government could step in and correct, easily, without altering the judeo christian muslim notion of marriage.

Anyhow, this should open the way for marital relations between people and consensual beasts. Think that the animals are non-consensual in bestiality films? Not always. And if gays can marry and have a consensual relationship, what is to stop a woman and her horse, or a man and a lemur? Love is beautiful, and sometimes furry.

 

[Marek]

I freely admit that I have no respect for many people or tradition, but I empathize with those who complain about people like me, and gays. Hell, I empathize with gays too, but I don't see their gripe as valid.

Aww, its the cynic who cares. So why is it that some traditions are sacred to you and others are worth ridiculing?

Deathbed visitation is one of the only rights they cannot grant themselves by contract, but it's also one that the government could step in and correct, easily, without altering the judeo christian muslim notion of marriage.

Why do you think marriage is a judeo chrisitan muslim notion? And furthermore why should our government support people in trying to impose 'judeo chrisitan muslim' PC bullshit? Doesn't separation of church and state apply here?

Anyhow, this should open the way for marital relations between people and consensual beasts. Think that the animals are non-consensual in bestiality films? Now always. And if gays can marry and have a consensual relationship, what is to stop a woman and her horse, or a man and a lemur? Love is beautiful, and sometimes furry.

This idea (opening the door for bestiality and interspecies marriage) is a talking point used by all of the worst right wing demagogues.

And it would be simple to correct. How about a law that says "no interspecies marriage"? Bestiality is still illegal everywhere so it shouldn't be an issue. I think this example makes no sense except to equate gay people to farm animals, which is the only reason right wingers and religious zealots use it at all.

 

[Jedah Doma]

So you're saying that Bokmeow's Princeton education is completely worthless

Yes that is what I am saying.

 

[lithy]

And it would be simple to correct. How about a law that says "no interspecies marriage"? Bestiality is still illegal everywhere so it shouldn't be an issue. I think this example makes no sense except to equate gay people to farm animals, which is the only reason right wingers and religious zealots use it at all.

Would be even easier than that. I don't know what wasabi think is a consenting animal, but I wonder how many animals he has seen sign a contract.

 

[Nesagwa]

Would be even easier than that. I don't know what wasabi think is a consenting animal, but I wonder how many animals he has seen sign a contract.

Animals arent a people!

 

[evil wasabi]

Everything is worth ridiculing.

Bringing in the judeo-christian-muslim aspects of marriage does not limit it to those religions, but establishes the long, millenia old tradition of marriage between man and woman or women. Even in ancient cultures, the Greeks, Romans, and Jews did not sanction gay marriage. They just fucked each other in the ass. Obviously this was not a big deal for them. Why should America be so cuttin edge on this whole marriage thing when so many other cultures don't give a damn, and when America should be dealing with relevant problems instead of gay marriage? It's like we are being distracted by gay marriage so that we ignore how fucking shitty the state of the US is right now. Maybe all those gays will pump some money into the economy with their extravagant weddings? Who knows.

Inter-species marriage is not universally outlawed nor universally verboten. There was the man in the middle east, I think Afghanistan, who slept with another man's goat, and the local court decided that the goat lover must marry the other man's goat. Now, were this man and his goat to visit DC, should the DC government acknowledge that marriage as valid? Freedom of religion, tolerance, and all that jazz.

Aww, its the cynic who cares. So why is it that some traditions are sacred to you and others are worth ridiculing?



Why do you think marriage is a judeo chrisitan muslim notion? And furthermore why should our government support people in trying to impose 'judeo chrisitan muslim' PC bullshit? Doesn't separation of church and state apply here?



This idea (opening the door for bestiality and interspecies marriage) is a talking point used by all of the worst right wing demagogues.

And it would be simple to correct. How about a law that says "no interspecies marriage"? Bestiality is still illegal everywhere so it shouldn't be an issue. I think this example makes no sense except to equate gay people to farm animals, which is the only reason right wingers and religious zealots use it at all.

 

[Lagduf]

Fuck tradition.

kthxbye.

 

[evil wasabi]

but I wonder how many animals he has seen sign a contract.

You'd be surprised the number of shady contracts I've brokered. Having an animal sign a contract should be no more difficult than getting an illiterate athlete to sign a contract.

 

[evil wasabi]

Fuck tradition.

Indeed, America's founding principle.

 

[Lagduf]

Well, you were making a good point...



... up until that part. That example is too much of an exaggeration to fit.

As far as I and the state are concerned, a civil union is a marriage. The only disparity is that there isn't really a wedding ceremony for it (as far as I know). Since a wedding ceremony is traditionally performed between a man and a woman at a church by a pastor, that's where the discrepancy pops in. Most churches won't do a gay ceremony, which leaves some gay people feeling left out, I guess.

Remember that story awhile back of that gay couple that wanted to go to a religious retreat, but were turned away? They made a huge stink about it and tried to make the church staff look like bigots, when it was they who disrespected that church's traditions in the first place.

That's the kind of attitude that gets under my skin. Again, I'm not against gay marriage, but this idea of imposing yourself on others just because you feel slighted seems pretty selfish and disrespectful.

The fact is that there are many churches who allow homosexuals in their congregations and would even marry them. And even if no churches would do a wedding ceremony [which is an act only "for show" anyway) for a gay couple then at least a gay couple could get a marriage certificate from the state, which is what legally makes them married and not some bullshit ceremony by a guy with a bible. Not all states have civil unions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

Homosexuals shouldn't go to churches that look down on them. If they go to such churches then they are idiots. In your example that gay couple were morons. I agree with you that people shouldn't force their values on others or try to take things they're entitled to when they aren't.

However I don't think homosexuals are pushing for the "right" to get married in a church. If homosexuals think they deserve to be married in a church (especially by one who doesn't support gay rights) then they're stupid as fuck.

But a church isn't the state. A church can do a lot of things a state can't do so long as they say it's part of their religion. The state in my opinion can't deny people the ability to get married because of the nature of their relationship.

Homosexuals are fighting for the right to get married, period.

 

[evil wasabi]

Why bother now, after so many thousands of years?

The fact is that there are many churches who allow homosexuals in their congregations and would even marry them. And even if no churches would do a wedding ceremony [which is an act only "for show" anyway) for a gay couple then at least a gay couple could get a marriage certificate from the state, which is what legally makes them married and not some bullshit ceremony by a guy with a bible. Not all states have civil unions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

Homosexuals shouldn't go to churches that look down on them. If they go to such churches then they are idiots. In your example that gay couple were morons. I agree with you that people shouldn't force their values on others or try to take things they're entitled to when they aren't.

However I don't think homosexuals are pushing for the "right" to get married in a church. If homosexuals think they deserve to be married in a church (especially by one who doesn't support gay rights) then they're stupid as fuck.

But a church isn't the state. A church can do a lot of things a state can't do so long as they say it's part of their religion. The state in my opinion can't deny people the ability to get married because of the nature of their relationship.

Homosexuals are fighting for the right to get married, period.

 

[norton9478]

Actually, Gay people can get married in any state... They often do...The only problem is that they aren't allowed to marry the people they want.

sign an NDA, along with the other legal documents. Takes a few seconds to download, print, and sign. Notarization is free at your local bank.

Somehow, I don't think that a blanket NDA will hold up in a criminal trial.

 

[ViewtifulZFO]

Come with me, on a fascinating journey into Christian morality!

Let's view this from a Christian perspective. Most fundamentalist Christians are entirely opposed to gay marriage, not only solely because it "defiles" the institution of marriage, but also because it legislates "sin" directly.

This last point is more important than you think. Most other things a Christian would consider "sinful" are not directly legislated by the government. Strip clubs, for example, are a business, and a natural result of a the free market; Christians are not legislating against businesses that do things they consider to be sins because they would be denying the others a right to free speech and whatnot. Obviously, the Christian music market wouldn't want religious speech to be illegal in music, so they aren't going to do that.

However, the gay marriage case is a bit different. To Christians who oppose gay marriage, to them it seems that the government is directly legislating sinful actions, making it "normalized" and "okay". That is not something that most fundamentalist churches want. One has to remember here that sin is an offense against God, and for the government to literally say it's fine and dandy to do it is something Christians will defend against.

Regardless of whether or not marriage has its origins in pagan ceremonies and rituals, it has been appropriated into American Christian culture, and it certainly isn't going to go away anytime soon. Fundamentalists consider homosexual relations of any kind a sin, going against God's plan for humanity, and thus there can be no "homosexual marriage" in that sense. In marriage,"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - there is no room for male/male or female/female, and I suppose human/animal as well. Since they believe this so heartily, they are willing to appears as bigots to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the culture. This is not just a simple issue of keeping marriage "between a man and women", but there are a host of implications that come along with it.

Whether or not you think this is a problem or not, that's not my issue; I just think it's important to understand why most Christians do not want "gay marriage" to exist in any form. Whether or not this has a Biblical basis or not is also not my issue here; that's American Christianity, and though hatred of homosexuals and the like is certainly wrong, the appropriation of marriage by that community could never be accepted by a church organization that knows their Scripture.

 

[evil wasabi]

Somehow, I don't think that a blanket NDA will hold up in a criminal trial.

Marital privilege doesn't always hold up in criminal trials either, if the spouse wants to testify. Besides, if the gays want to be cheeky, they can call the priest-penitent privilege instead.

 

[HeartlessNinny]

Why is this even a debate? Do people still debate segregation? Am I missing something? This is completely ridiculous. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who opposes equal rights for homosexuals, including marriage, is a bigot, pure and simple.

And you will lose this fight. Gay marriage is inevitiable. Just fucking accept it already and save us all a goddamn headache.

 

[Nesagwa]

Come with me, on a fascinating journey into Christian morality!

Let's view this from a Christian perspective. Most fundamentalist Christians are entirely opposed to gay marriage, not only solely because it "defiles" the institution of marriage, but also because it legislates "sin" directly.

This last point is more important than you think. Most other things a Christian would consider "sinful" are not directly legislated by the government. Strip clubs, for example, are a business, and a natural result of a the free market; Christians are not legislating against businesses that do things they consider to be sins because they would be denying the others a right to free speech and whatnot. Obviously, the Christian music market wouldn't want religious speech to be illegal in music, so they aren't going to do that.

However, the gay marriage case is a bit different. To Christians who oppose gay marriage, to them it seems that the government is directly legislating sinful actions, making it "normalized" and "okay". That is not something that most fundamentalist churches want. One has to remember here that sin is an offense against God, and for the government to literally say it's fine and dandy to do it is something Christians will defend against.

Regardless of whether or not marriage has its origins in pagan ceremonies and rituals, it has been appropriated into American Christian culture, and it certainly isn't going to go away anytime soon. Fundamentalists consider homosexual relations of any kind a sin, going against God's plan for humanity, and thus there can be no "homosexual marriage" in that sense. In marriage,"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - there is no room for male/male or female/female, and I suppose human/animal as well. Since they believe this so heartily, they are willing to appears as bigots to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the culture. This is not just a simple issue of keeping marriage "between a man and women", but there are a host of implications that come along with it.

Whether or not you think this is a problem or not, that's not my issue; I just think it's important to understand why most Christians do not want "gay marriage" to exist in any form. Whether or not this has a Biblical basis or not is also not my issue here; that's American Christianity, and though hatred of homosexuals and the like is certainly wrong, the appropriation of marriage by that community could never be accepted by a church organization that knows their Scripture.

They do legislate against strip clubs and adult book stores fairly regularly actually. They pass zoning laws that make it almost impossible for them to operate.

 

[evil wasabi]

Your post was bigoted against those who don't agree with you. Good job.

Many of the rights demanded should not be rights at all. Right to hospital visitation, for example. I would prefer that many members of my family be banned from my hospital bedroom if I was dying. I would rather have my friends with me.

As for testimonial privilege, I'm against this in just about any way. I understand why it's there, but I think it's ambiguous and contradicts justice.

Why is this even a debate? Do people still debate segregation? Am I missing something? This is completely ridiculous. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who opposes equal rights for homosexuals, including marriage, is a bigot, pure and simple.

And you will lose this fight. Gay marriage is inevitiable. Just fucking accept it already and save us all a goddamn headache.