Obama Caves to Homosexual Agenda

[ClydeR]

WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama, offering a small win to the gay-rights community, will sign a directive Wednesday giving some new benefits to the domestic partners of federal civil service employees.

Specifically, federal workers will be allowed to add their gay and lesbian partners to the long-term care insurance program, and supervisors will be required to let workers use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children, according to a fact sheet released Wednesday.

In addition, Foreign Service employees will win a number of new benefits for their partners, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124526168275024051.html)

I thought we solved this problem 90 years ago when the feds fired Walt Whitman (http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Walt_Whitman/) from his job in the Interior Department because he was a homosexual. Then in 1953, President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower made it official (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html) that all homosexuals were to be found out and fired from the federal government.

Although no one recognized it at the time, Eisenhower's sound policy faced its greatest threat just four years later when the feds fired a man named Frank Kameny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kameny) for being a homosexual. Kameny, it turns out, was the person who started our nation on its slow slide down the slippery slope.

When Obama signed his "memorandum (http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedbenefits_mem_rel.pdf)" last night, the elderly Mr. Kameny was at his side (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/06/17/obama_to_extend_benefits_to_unmarried_partners/), and Obama gave the signing pen to Kameny.

The memorandum that Obama signed doesn't change anything immediately. There is still time for Congress to act to stop it. All the memorandum does is order the civil service and foreign service, but not the military service, to report to the Department of Justice those benefits that they believe can be given to homosexuals without violating federal law and without exceeding Congressional appropriations. After clearing those two hurdles, all that remains is pretty much limited to the few things in the Wall Street Journal article quoted above.

What should Republicans in Congress do now? Assuming they think it's worth bothering with, then instead of attacking the memorandum directly, they should try to restrict its reach by carefully wording appropriations for federal employee benefits in a way that is dependent on marital status, which would cause those benefits to fall under the Defense of Marriage Act and would make them unavailable to homosexuals.

[BriarFox]

The gay community is pretty impatient and annoyed at Obama, actually. They wanted immediate change, and he's taking baby steps. Still, he is working on it.

[g++]

Obama should really have some kind of state sanctioned parade to get the word out about this initiative.

[kookiegod]

Outstanding change...

And I am a christian conversative...

I just think whatever two or more adults want to do consentually in their bedroom is no place for government intrusion.

Marriage is the church and no other, and the states responsbility should just to be sure the proper forms are recorded for legal domestic unions.

Always amuses me that the incredibly liberal and catholic Massachusetts was the first one to get it right.

~Paul

[droit]

I want gay marriage to be legal--none of this "separate but equal" crap. I do think the GLBT community needs to calm down and get in line, though. The things on Obama's plate are too important for him to squander political capital on a divisive culture war right now. As much as I'd like for him to just sign gay marriage into law, I think he's taking the more prudent course with these kinds of policy changes. Let a few more states introduce their own gay marriage legislation, let homosexuality become even more integrated into our culture (which is happening slowly but inexorably), and strike when the iron is hot.

My two cents.

[Mikalmas]

Yeah, we (the gay community) are pissed. And we have every right to be.

Someone recently (I forgot who, I apologize) pointed out the very problem in an earlier thread. The Democratic party courts the gay vote, makes promises, we donate money and time, and then in the end they forget us when we help elect them. The LGBT vote is becoming a more and more important demographic. I just wish we had another viable option.

Most of us don't have the expectation of Obama changing the world overnight. What do we expect, however, is SOMETHING. Until the signing of this memorandum, he had been utterly silent on LGBT issues. The California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 came and went without any comment from the White House. The murder of Dr. Tiller came with an almost immediate response from the White House. Utter silence. Not even a firm official word on his intentions for DADT as far as I've heard.

I know I can't pretend to speak for the LGBT population in general, or even the LGBT electorate, but I can speak for myself. And I say I'm tired of waiting. Jim Crow didn't work in the 50's and 60's. The Supreme Court recognized that and changed it. Did it take a while? Yes. Was it popular? Hell no.

We recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. When exactly is
"our turn" if not 40 years after the birth of the movement?

Brown V. Board of Education was a historical decision. Was it popular? Hell no. Was it the right thing? Yes. Roe V. Wade was another "unpopular" decision, but the court recognized it for what it was. I'm so sick of social conservatives screaming about "the will of the people." I'm sorry, other people don't get a vote in my civil rights, at least they sure as hell shouldn't.

That being said, just like anyone who supports a candidate for office, we have expectations for that support. I have changed my affiliation from Democrat to Independent (which I done during the last primary season). I wasn't an Obama supporter during the primaries, and wasn't particularly crazy about him during the general election, but I did vote for him. And so did most of the LGBT electorate, in overwhelming numbers. Could he have won the White House without our vote? Possibly. Would it have been a hell of a lot closer? Yes. President Obama was a staunch supporter of LGBT rights during the campaign. He had some strong rhetoric in defense of LGBT americans, but once again, as with all elections before, he seems to have forgotten us after the win.

That's my issue with President Obama and the Democratic party in general. I don't expect things to change overnight, but I do have expectations. If you're going to promise to fight for the rights of all americans, then you should do it. This memorandum is a step in the right direction, but is only a very small first step. I certainly expect much more out of President Obama, and I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be very disappointed and looking for another candidate in the 2012 Presidential election. I guess he has 2.5 years to convince me.

[Allereli]

holy shit, what happened to ClydeR's red boxes?

[Bhuryn]

This is the right way to go. Give Civil unions the same benefits as marriage and this whole issue becomes moot.

[Mikalmas]

This is the right way to go. Give Civil unions the same benefits as marriage and this whole issue becomes moot.

Or, you know, have the federal government issue civil unions to ALL U.S. Citizens and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions without any connotation to law or the rights conferred by law.

[Bhuryn]

Or, you know, have the federal government issue civil unions to ALL U.S. Citizens and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions without any connotation to law or the rights conferred by law.

Well, that's pretty much what I was getting at without saying it completely =).

[diethx]

Or, you know, have the federal government issue civil unions to ALL U.S. Citizens and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions without any connotation to law or the rights conferred by law.

I'm a big supporter of gay marriage, but um, no.

Just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get married and have my ceremony at the court house in December like i'm planning to.

[ClydeR]

...when the iron is hot.

Traditionally, it's "while," not "when." It's an ancient caution against delay, and it's a modern directive to rush to action. But I like how you changed it.

Hesitation = loss.

[Mikalmas]

I'm a big supporter of gay marriage, but um, no.

Just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get married and have my ceremony at the court house in December like i'm planning to.

It's not the gays trying to monopolize the word "marriage." A vast majority of the "opposition" to gay marriage comes in the form of religious objections, which have no place in determining my constitutionally protected rights as a US citizen.

I'm all for getting married as well. But this "seperate but equal" shit is just that, shit.

My point (to the social conservatives) is if you're going to seperate civil unions from marriage, it should be a religious seperation, rather than one determined by sexual orientation.

In Federal law, ALL United States citizens should be treated equally. This is just another seperate water fountains and restrooms type situation. People have no right to say I should settle for civil unions and let them get "married." Even if the bathrooms look the same, they ain't the same.

[Slider]

Understand your point, and am all for gay marriage, BUT I am strongly opposed to the gov't being given authority in the case of marriage. What I mean by that is marriage is, IMHO, a function of religion, not of state. As such the gov't needs to stay out of it, and it is up to each religion to decide where it stands on the matter. Some are all for it, and will perform gay marriages, some are opposed, and will not. Fine, it is their right to do so, just as it is your right to agree/disagree with them.

Now, there should be NOTHING preventing you from getting a marriage, at say, the courthouse, or a Justice of the Peace, because those are, and should be, a seperate function of the state. And the gov't should, absolutly, recognize those marriages, performed BY the state, as valid between same sex couples, just as it recognizes those marriages as valid for male/female couples.

Yes, the above is a very fine distinction between the two, but nevertheless, it is a distinction that is already in place, and that the gov't, and Obama, need to step up and recognize.

But for the gov't to attempt to force, through legislation, a religion to do something that it is opposed to flies right in the face of seperation of church and state.

[Allereli]

But for the gov't to attempt to force, through legislation, a religion to do something that it is opposed to flies right in the face of seperation of church and state.

I don't think I've ever seen any argument for that to happen. People just want their rights, such as being able to visit a loved one in the hospital in intensive care.

[Mikalmas]

I don't think I've ever seen any argument for that to happen. People just want their rights, such as being able to visit a loved one in the hospital in intensive care.

That.

No offense intended, but I honestly don't give a rat's ass what your (generic "you") church thinks of me, or my relationship or its validity. (Yes, I'm Christian). I have never and would never advocate forcing any church to sanction anything they're not comfortable with. Unlike the other side of the argument, I have no desire to erode the seperation of church and state. My only concern, as Allereli pointed out, is my equal rights under the law. That being said, the options have been outlined pretty well, no need to repeat them again. :)

[ClydeR]

In Federal law, ALL United States citizens should be treated equally. This is just another seperate water fountains and restrooms type situation. People have no right to say I should settle for civil unions and let them get "married." Even if the bathrooms look the same, they ain't the same.

How would you answer someone who says that homosexuals are already treated equally under the marriage laws? The argument is that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else, as long as you define marriage as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

[Bhuryn]

I'm a big supporter of gay marriage, but um, no.

Just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get married and have my ceremony at the court house in December like i'm planning to.

Not to put words in someone elses mouth but the word "marriage" in that context is refering more to the spiritual marriage in a church. In many European countries they actually call marriages performed outside the church "Civil Marriage". They're equally recognized socially and legally.

If it infers the same rights, why do you care what the government calls it?

[Bhuryn]

How would you answer someone who says that homosexuals are already treated equally under the marriage laws? The argument is that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else, as long as you define marriage as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

You're applying a twisted logic to the situation though. The rights of marriage are given to the couple, not the individuals within the marriage. If you divorce, you lose the rights you received while married. So you're completely incorrect. Homosexual couples do not have the same rights, and the benefits infered, from marriage.

[Latrinsorm]

That's my issue with President Obama and the Democratic party in general. I don't expect things to change overnight, but I do have expectations. If you're going to promise to fight for the rights of all americans, then you should do it. This memorandum is a step in the right direction, but is only a very small first step. I certainly expect much more out of President Obama, and I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be very disappointed and looking for another candidate in the 2012 Presidential election. I guess he has 2.5 years to convince me.Obama's only been in power for 5 months. Why are you (and I mean you personally, not the LGBT community) giving up on him so quickly? I would think the way he's handling Iraq and Guantanamo Bay would provide the blueprint for how he's going to handle everything else: cautiously and slowly but eventually aligned with what he promised.

[ClydeR]

You're applying a twisted logic to the situation though. The rights of marriage are given to the couple, not the individuals within the marriage. If you divorce, you lose the rights you received while married. So you're completely incorrect. Homosexual couples do not have the same rights, and the benefits infered, from marriage.

What I said is one of the many arguments that the Dept. of Justice made last week in a federal court in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Your response about marriage rights applying to couples, instead of individuals, is novel. But you'll have to do better than that to outsmart the Obama Justice Dept.

[Bhuryn]

What I said is one of the many arguments that the Dept. of Justice made last week in a federal court in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Your response about marriage rights applying to couples, instead of individuals, is novel. But you'll have to do better than that to outsmart the Obama Justice Dept.

Um, marriage bestows the rights on the couple not the individual. There's not outsmarting anyone here, it's sorta of, you know, the way the marriage law works?

Show me someone that's never been married and has the same rights as someone who is.

[Lumi]

I don't think I've ever seen any argument for that to happen. People just want their rights, such as being able to visit a loved one in the hospital in intensive care.

This is it, exactly. No one wants the government to force churches to marry gays, they want the government to say "as far as we're concerned there is NO difference between a civil union of ANY kind, be it state-issued between two members of the same sex, or religiously ordained by a church".

I think that the government should call EVERYTHING a civil union, and let the churches/synagogues/etc. call it whatever the hell they want to. But the rights as conferred by the government have to be equal across the board.

[Mabus]

I think that the government should call EVERYTHING a civil union, and let the churches/synagogues/etc. call it whatever the hell they want to. But the rights as conferred by the government have to be equal across the board.
Pretty much sums up my opinion on this issue since this debate started.

[Mikalmas]

Obama's only been in power for 5 months. Why are you (and I mean you personally, not the LGBT community) giving up on him so quickly? I would think the way he's handling Iraq and Guantanamo Bay would provide the blueprint for how he's going to handle everything else: cautiously and slowly but eventually aligned with what he promised.

I understand what you're saying. I do. And I don't expect miracles at this point. What really disappointed me the most so far is the apalling silence after the California Prop 8 ruling, but almost instant commentary after the Tiller incident.

I guess it just seems like I've waited for years for a President that might actually acknowledge the issues facing my demographic, and he certainly promised to during the campaign, but so far hasn't. The memorandum was a good start, but a far cry from what he COULD accomplish. My beef isn't just with President Obama. I have issues with the entire democratic party, for reasons I outlined previously.

The reality of the situation, at least for me, is that the Democrats have very little time of guaranteed control until the midterm elections. I don't know how the midterm elections will turn out, but anything past the next year and a half is uncertain politically, this is the only time we KNOW we have to work with and make changes. The President's first two years give him the best opportunity to make changes that he's going to have. Does that make any sense?

[Daniel]

I understand what you're saying. I do. And I don't expect miracles at this point. What really disappointed me the most so far is the apalling silence after the California Prop 8 ruling, but almost instant commentary after the Tiller incident.

I guess it just seems like I've waited for years for a President that might actually acknowledge the issues facing my demographic, and he certainly promised to during the campaign, but so far hasn't. The memorandum was a good start, but a far cry from what he COULD accomplish. My beef isn't just with President Obama. I have issues with the entire democratic party, for reasons I outlined previously.

The reality of the situation, at least for me, is that the Democrats have very little time of guaranteed control until the midterm elections. I don't know how the midterm elections will turn out, but anything past the next year and a half is uncertain politically, this is the only time we KNOW we have to work with and make changes. The President's first two years give him the best opportunity to make changes that he's going to have. Does that make any sense?


Uh..what exactly do you think Obama can do about a state law?

The guy isn't omnipotent.

[Mikalmas]

Uh..what exactly do you think Obama can do about a state law?

The guy isn't omnipotent.

I never said I expected him to DO anything about it. I expected at least a written response to the ruling from the White House. There was nothing but silence on the entire matter.

[droit]

What exactly did you want him to do about the Prop 8 ruling? He couldn't have changed the ruling, but speaking out against it just paints him as trying to influence the judicial branch, which plays directly into the hands of his conservative opponents. This is exactly what people mean by "squandering political capital"--making a politically divisive fuss when there is really no possible positive outcome. Instead, he kept quiet and didn't allow himself to be drawn into an unproductive battle, leaving himself more options for down the road.

[Mikalmas]

What exactly did you want him to do about the Prop 8 ruling? He couldn't have changed the ruling, but speaking out against it just paints him as trying to influence the judicial branch, which plays directly into the hands of his conservative opponents. This is exactly what people mean by "squandering political capital"--making a politically divisive fuss when there is really no possible positive outcome. Instead, he kept quiet and didn't allow himself to be drawn into an unproductive battle, leaving himself more options for down the road.

You don't think the abortion debate is a "politically divisive fuss"?

Everyone has their issues thats most important to them, and its usually whatever issues are closest to them or has the greatest impact on their lives. This is one of mine (marriage rights and healthcare) because these are real, personal issues for me. Much more so than for someone who's never had their marriage rights restricted by the state. I'm not saying straight people don't care or shouldn't care, believe me, we need all the straight allies we can get, and I at least am appreciative and grateful for my straight supporters. Just trying to provide some insight as to why this issue is so important to me.

[droit]

It certainly is, and I hope his comments don't bite him in the ass.

It just seems like politics today is a zero-sum game. The sides are incredibly polarized and compromise and negotiation seem to be a thing of the past. Under these circumstances, a politician has only so much influence he or she can throw around before the other side starts trying to block everything that person does by any means necessary.

I understand why this is a key issue for you and your community and ultimately the entire US. However, from my perspective, it seems like equal rights for homosexuals is an inevitability, given the current social trajectory. What we're really fighting for is not if it will happen, but when. Given this, I can understand why it is not taken as a top priority for many people when we have such other pressing issues at hand.

[Mikalmas]

Under these circumstances, a politician has only so much influence he or she can throw around before the other side starts trying to block everything that person does by any means necessary.

Unfortunately, this started the day Obama was elected.

[diethx]

It's not the gays trying to monopolize the word "marriage." A vast majority of the "opposition" to gay marriage comes in the form of religious objections, which have no place in determining my constitutionally protected rights as a US citizen.

I'm all for getting married as well. But this "seperate but equal" shit is just that, shit.

My point (to the social conservatives) is if you're going to seperate civil unions from marriage, it should be a religious seperation, rather than one determined by sexual orientation.

In Federal law, ALL United States citizens should be treated equally. This is just another seperate water fountains and restrooms type situation. People have no right to say I should settle for civil unions and let them get "married." Even if the bathrooms look the same, they ain't the same.

I never said it was the the LGBT community trying to do that shit, and I agree with almost everything you've said. But that's it exactly - people have no right to say you should settle for a civil union (because you're gay) and let them get "married", just like people have no right to say I should settle for a civil union (because I think religion is bullshit) and let them get "married".


Not to put words in someone elses mouth but the word "marriage" in that context is refering more to the spiritual marriage in a church. In many European countries they actually call marriages performed outside the church "Civil Marriage". They're equally recognized socially and legally.

If it infers the same rights, why do you care what the government calls it?

I don't really care what the religious think "marriage" refers to, really. But I know what it means to me... and I guess I just think "civil union" sounds cold. The term makes me think of contracts and suits and "business". And unless that's the type of situation the couple wants, I don't think anyone should have to take that over an actual ceremony, religious or otherwise.

[Hulkein]

Civil unions from the government conferring all the legal benefits of what used to be called a traditional marriage. Scrap the word marriage from all government records, laws, etc. End of pointless argument.

Let religions marry people under God, or in diethx's case and people like her, let her have a private ceremony and she can call it whatever the fuck she wants. From the government's standpoint, you are engaged in a civil union. From your standpoint, it is whatever you want to call it.

[Lumi]

Civil unions from the government conferring all the legal benefits of what used to be called a traditional marriage. Scrap the word marriage from all government records, laws, etc. End of pointless argument.

Let religions marry people under God, or in diethx's case and people like her, let her have a private ceremony and she can call it whatever the fuck she wants. From the government's standpoint, you are engaged in a civil union. From your standpoint, it is whatever you want to call it.

This.

[Mikalmas]

Civil unions from the government conferring all the legal benefits of what used to be called a traditional marriage. Scrap the word marriage from all government records, laws, etc. End of pointless argument.

Let religions marry people under God, or in diethx's case and people like her, let her have a private ceremony and she can call it whatever the fuck she wants. From the government's standpoint, you are engaged in a civil union. From your standpoint, it is whatever you want to call it.

Oh, I agree completely. It really should be this simple. I have a hard time understanding sometimes why it isn't, and how anyone can think its OK to deny a specific group of Americans a specific set of federal rights. I just can't reconcile that in my mind, regardless of who the group is or what rights they're being denied (without due process, of course).

[Hulkein]

The problem, Mikalmas, is that a lot of people don't believe homosexuality is a choice. I personally know a lot of good people who are intelligent who doubt whether or not a person is born that way. I don't agree with them but hey, there is no conclusive proof either way the last I checked (and I mean that literally, I don't keep up on the science of sexual preference).

When someone believes that homosexuals are that way out of choice, you can see why they don't view it as a specific group of American's being denied federal rights.

I think that my (and others have said the same thing) plan appeases both lines of thinking and that's why I'm surprised it isn't discussed on a national level as the solution to the bickering.

[Mikalmas]

The problem, Mikalmas, is that a lot of people don't believe homosexuality is a choice. I personally know a lot of good people who are intelligent who doubt whether or not a person is born that way. I don't agree with them but hey, there is no conclusive proof either way the last I checked (and I mean that literally, I don't keep up on the science of sexual preference).

When someone believes that homosexuals are that way out of choice, you can see why they don't view it as a specific group of American's being denied federal rights.

No, I still don't see it. I understand where you're coming from, and precisely what you're saying, but I can't make the leap.

People can choose to be a blonde if they want, all it takes is a bottle of dye. But we don't tell them they're not allowed to get married because they changed their hair color. People choose to be a vegetarian, but we don't deny them the right to vote.

Further, people can have sex change operations, legally change their gender, and get married. Imagine that.

[droit]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/conservatives_warn_quick_sex

[4a6c1]

holy shit, what happened to ClydeR's red boxes?

yeah. my bad. he pisses me off but when i finally get his carefully cloaked insults, i giggle myself to pieces.


Or, you know, have the federal government issue civil unions to ALL U.S. Citizens and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions without any connotation to law or the rights conferred by law.


Mikalmas is a fucking genius.

[Geshron]

Kudos to promoting intolerance, awesome! You sick fucks.

[Hulkein]

No, I still don't see it. I understand where you're coming from, and precisely what you're saying, but I can't make the leap.

People can choose to be a blonde if they want, all it takes is a bottle of dye. But we don't tell them they're not allowed to get married because they changed their hair color. People choose to be a vegetarian, but we don't deny them the right to vote.

Further, people can have sex change operations, legally change their gender, and get married. Imagine that.

You have a point. I am not going to pretend to have a problem with what you're saying. Still, there is a certain reasonable resistance to that sort of choice if you believe that they could just as easily marry someone of the opposite sex (and by marry I mean marry them because you are attracted to them because it is a choice) and procreate and propagate the species.

[TheRunt]

Specifically, federal workers will be allowed to add their gay and lesbian partners to the long-term care insurance program, and supervisors will be required to let workers use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children, according to a fact sheet released Wednesday.

If I were a unmarried straight federal worker, I'd sue. Unless I was allowed to put my current partner on the insurance also. From the sound of it, it discriminates against hetros.

[Bhuryn]

I don't really care what the religious think "marriage" refers to, really. But I know what it means to me... and I guess I just think "civil union" sounds cold. The term makes me think of contracts and suits and "business". And unless that's the type of situation the couple wants, I don't think anyone should have to take that over an actual ceremony, religious or otherwise.


This is exactly what marriage is -- Marriage is alot of work once you get past the honeymoon :).

[Mikalmas]

If I were a unmarried straight federal worker, I'd sue. Unless I was allowed to put my current partner on the insurance also. From the sound of it, it discriminates against hetros.

I haven't read the specifics of this program, but the vast majority of the time, when benefits are afforded to "domestic partners," they're afforded to unmarried heterosexual couples as well as gay couples.

Which of course illustrates yet another reason why this is unacceptable. It is *not* marriage rights. Funny, though, that you'd even bring up a point like that, considering gay couples could (and usually do) say the EXACT same thing about marriage. It discriminates against gays, should we sue?

[diethx]

This is exactly what marriage is -- Marriage is alot of work once you get past the honeymoon :).

Work != what I described.

I'm geniunely sorry if that's how you see your marriage. :/

[Jorddyn]

Work != what I described.

I'm geniunely sorry if that's how you see your marriage. :/

I don't think it's an all encompassing view of what marriage is, but the legal side of it is basically one huge contract. You become a partnership, combine your assets, get to make life and death decisions for each other, and in general make breaking up really messy. This is the part of it that gays are denied, but really want.

The whole mushy "I love you" stuff? They already have that. Which is why I find it funny that that part is the one being argued against by saying "Let's give them civil unions instead."

[diethx]

I don't think it's an all encompassing view of what marriage is, but the legal side of it is basically one huge contract. You become a partnership, combine your assets, get to make life and death decisions for each other, and in general make breaking up really messy. This is the part of it that gays are denied, but really want.

The whole mushy "I love you" stuff? They already have that. Which is why I find it funny that that part is the one being argued against by saying "Let's give them civil unions instead."

I think it's more the point that they want to be equal with the rest of us. I don't think that's such a horrible thing, really.

[Geshron]

Relationships definitely are a great deal of work. I would use that term because you have to be proactive constantly in the situation, making sure neither party becomes "too comfortable" and then their weaknesses/bad sides tend to play out more often. I am sure there is a vast percentage of relationships that end because one or both parties did not put forth effort after the novelty of it wore off. That goes for homos/non-homos/bestials, whoever man.

[Jorddyn]

I think it's more the point that they want to be equal with the rest of us. I don't think that's such a horrible thing, really.

Nor do I. But, like I said, the mushy "I love you", and living together, and the sharing lives and checking accounts - they can already have all of that.

[TheRunt]

I haven't read the specifics of this program, but the vast majority of the time, when benefits are afforded to "domestic partners," they're afforded to unmarried heterosexual couples as well as gay couples.

Which of course illustrates yet another reason why this is unacceptable. It is *not* marriage rights. Funny, though, that you'd even bring up a point like that, considering gay couples could (and usually do) say the EXACT same thing about marriage. It discriminates against gays, should we sue?

I know of one college near my house that offers benefits to "domestic partners" of the same sex only.

And how does marriage discriminate against gays? You have the exact same rights to marriage as hetro people do, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[Mikalmas]

I know of one college near my house that offers benefits to "domestic partners" of the same sex only.

And how does marriage discriminate against gays? You have the exact same rights to marriage as hetro people do, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is just a stupid fucking argument, and you're not going to bait me into participating in it.

[Jorddyn]

I know of one college near my house that offers benefits to "domestic partners" of the same sex only.

And how does marriage discriminate against gays? You have the exact same rights to marriage as hetro people do, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And 50 years ago, everyone had the same rights - to marry someone of the same color and opposite sex. I really don't get how that was discriminatory, either.

[diethx]

And 50 years ago, everyone had the same rights - to marry someone of the same color and opposite sex. I really don't get how that was discriminatory, either.

AHahahaha.

[ClydeR]

That is just a stupid fucking argument, and you're not going to bait me into participating in it.

Unless teh homosexuals want to lose by default in court, they will have to engage that argument. It's one of the things President Obama's Justice Department argued in a court filing last week. Stupid or not, you can't ignore it.

[ClydeR]

More caving. The Census Bureau will illegally release information that President Bush, who was just following the law, worked so hard to keep secret.


The Census Bureau has long collected data on same-sex marriages when people chose to report it. White House officials said the previous administration interpreted the federal Defense of Marriage Act as prohibiting the release of the data. The Obama administration has abandoned that interpretation.

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124537164093129827.html)

[4a6c1]

OMG BABYLON

QUICK, SOMEBODY BUILD A BOAT

[Bhuryn]

Work != what I described.

I'm geniunely sorry if that's how you see your marriage. :/

Marriage isn't all sunshine and roses like the movies.

[diethx]

Marriage isn't all sunshine and roses like the movies.

Who said it was? And what movie have you seen that portrayed a sunshine and roses marriage? The Brady Bunch movie? Cuz um, most movies i've seen portray marriage in a manner quite the opposite.

But there's a HUGE grey area between sunshine and roses and what I described. Learn it.

[Snapp]

Unless teh homosexuals want to lose by default in court, they will have to engage that argument..

We won't once we get that giant laser up and running.

[Bhuryn]

Who said it was? And what movie have you seen that portrayed a sunshine and roses marriage? The Brady Bunch movie? Cuz um, most movies i've seen portray marriage in a manner quite the opposite.

But there's a HUGE grey area between sunshine and roses and what I described. Learn it.

What he hell are you talking about?


Just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get married and have my ceremony at the court house in December like i'm planning to.

You didn't describe anything at all, just that you were getting married at a court house (which by the way is about as clinical as it gets, i've been to a few of these "ceremonies").

I told you marriage itself is business like at times and that it's contractually based (religious contracts or legal).

Again, WTF are you talking about?

[diethx]

What he hell are you talking about?



You didn't describe anything at all, just that you were getting married at a court house (which by the way is about as clinical as it gets, i've been to a few of these "ceremonies").

I told you marriage itself is business like at times and that it's contractually based (religious contracts or legal).

Again, WTF are you talking about?

Uhhh, exactly what you FIRST QUOTED on page one of this thread.


I don't really care what the religious think "marriage" refers to, really. But I know what it means to me... and I guess I just think "civil union" sounds cold. The term makes me think of contracts and suits and "business". And unless that's the type of situation the couple wants, I don't think anyone should have to take that over an actual ceremony, religious or otherwise.

Afterwards, you tried to convince me that this is actually what marriage is. It's not all sunshine and roses, so it must be cold and contracts and all business.

That's why I said, i'm sorry if that's how you feel about your marriage. Just because you combine assets and everything else doesn't mean all it is, is a business contract.

[diethx]

This is exactly what marriage is -- Marriage is alot of work once you get past the honeymoon :).

Just quoting this again so you can remember exactly what you said. ;)

[Bhuryn]

Uhhh, exactly what you FIRST QUOTED on page one of this thread.



Afterwards, you tried to convince me that this is actually what marriage is. It's not all sunshine and roses, so it must be cold and contracts and all business.

That's why I said, i'm sorry if that's how you feel about your marriage. Just because you combine assets and everything else doesn't mean all it is, is a business contract.

You don't have to apologize to me, I think if you talked to most people that are or were married for a significant time they'd tell you some things are just easier without emotion. You'll go crazy and end up divorced if you handle everything emotionally in a marriage. I'm talking about marriage, not the act of getting married by the way.

[CrystalTears]

Uhhh, exactly what you FIRST QUOTED on page one of this thread.



Afterwards, you tried to convince me that this is actually what marriage is. It's not all sunshine and roses, so it must be cold and contracts and all business.

That's why I said, i'm sorry if that's how you feel about your marriage. Just because you combine assets and everything else doesn't mean all it is, is a business contract.
Legally speaking, a marriage IS a contract. You're binding yourself with another and you now have mutual ownership of several things, including absorbing each other's credit. You no longer have the option of getting up and leaving without it involving a lawyer or some other legal action.

That is why it may as well be a civil union for legal purposes, and marriage for the hearts and flowers part of it - the part that none of give a damn how [general] you conduct it.

[diethx]

Legally speaking, a marriage IS a contract. You're binding yourself with another and you now have mutual ownership of several things, including absorbing each other's credit. You no longer have the option of getting up and leaving without it involving a lawyer or some other legal action.

That is why it may as well be a civil union for legal purposes, and marriage for the hearts and flowers part of it - the part that none of give a damn how [general] you conduct it.

And I never said a marriage wasn't a contract, legally speaking. I'm well aware of all of this, and never disputed any of it. But Bhuryn made the comment that that's all marriage is really, when you get down to it. Which leads me to think he's been married to the wrong person for too long. :D