Marriage Equality: we will never give up.

[Magic Man]

I'm just concerned, thats all. You might fail to see it, but there is enough history to take the issue seriously. Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before. This is America, but you never know.

No, we're not. It' the same set of standards for more people. The point is that no one should be denied their equal rights for any length of time. The other point is that it doesn't put any extra stress on anything other than people who don't want homosexuals to have equal rights.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm just concerned, thats all. You might fail to see it, but there is enough history to take the issue seriously. Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before. This is America, but you never know.

Like ending segregation and laws that prevented mixed race couples. Should we have moved slower on those issues to?

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before.

So the US doesn't have vast experience with marriage then.....? Calling this an 'entirely new set of' anything is really odd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just concerned, thats all. You might fail to see it, but there is enough history to take the issue seriously.

Can you be more specific? What history are you referring to?

Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before. This is America, but you never know.

The same can be said of any new law or government policy. Things change, people adjust. In the case of same-sex marriage, there would be little to no adjustment for the average person.

Maybe you can see the issue from the other point of view: on the one hand, we have clear, demonstrable and specific harms that are associated with the status quo. On the other hand, we have clear, demonstrable and specific benefits associated with legalization of same-sex marriage, a good track record of it being implemented in other countries without associated negative impacts, a good track record of similar civil rights initiatives being successfully implemented in the US, and only one thing counting against it: vague, unquantified and AFAICT unfounded pronouncements that there is some indeterminate possibility of some indeterminate harm.

How much weight should we give your nebulous concerns?

 

[McBell]

How much weight should we give your nebulous concerns?

Thus far he has presented nothing to cause me to give any weight to his concerns.

 

[Nepenthe]

My main concern is that if same-sex marriages are eventually accepted will a blender and dishes still be an acceptable wedding present?!?!!?

Will I have to monogram everything with a hare, hyena and weasel?!?!?
:sarcastic

 

[J Bryson]

I'm just concerned, thats all. You might fail to see it, but there is enough history to take the issue seriously. Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before. This is America, but you never know.

Perhaps, but well-intentioned people had the same uncertainty regarding Loving v Virginia, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. Any period of adjustment or issues that society would have would be a reflection upon those with the negative reactions, and not on those getting married.

 

[tumbleweed41]

NewsDaily: New Hampshire legalizes gay marriage

Another state comes to its senses!!!

 

[ryynänen47]

YAY, NEW HAMPSHIRE! GOOD ON YOU MATES!

Time to celebrate :grill:


Ryynänen47




​

 

[painted wolf]

Thank you... I am very proud of my state.

Not only did we do the civil union thing without a court mandate... we managed the marriage thing quite quickly afterward.

Live Free or Die :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm just concerned, thats all. You might fail to see it, but there is enough history to take the issue seriously. Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before. This is America, but you never know.

I think your concern is completely unfounded. Like mball said, this is nothing new. The only thing to change is that more people will have access to existing legal options. Much like when interracial couples were allowed to legally marry.

 

[Aquitaine]

Though the CA Supreme Court's decided to uphold the hate-filled and bigoted Prop 8, strips law-abiding citizens the fundamental right to marry, this fight isn't over there and will never be over until EVERY SINGLE STATE in the United States and the Federal Government recognize same sex marriage. It's as simple as that.

Discrimination and hatred, even when back by religion, will not be tolerated. The anti-marriage activists' bigotry will not win out in the end. Love, fairness and freedom will win. It has to, or this is not America. Our constitutions, both state and federal, should be used to grant rights and secure the liberty of its citizens, not be enshrined with hatred and bigotry seeking to withhold equal rights from law-abiding citizens. We will work tirelessly until this is rectified in every state and throughout the federal government.

So which side are you on, the side of freedom and justice, or the side of denying American citizens equal rights? Because that's what it comes down to, it's as simple as that.

I'm with your team on this one, even though I'm straight. It's not just a personal opinion either, there are plenty of logical reasons why allowing same-sex marriage would be beneficial for a country.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I feel like the gay movement hasn't reached critical mass just yet and that's the reason why the law is divided. Let's fact it, the surest way to get the job done is through a constitutional amendment.

Each state having a say is clearly not going to work. One state not allowing it and another state allowing it will just undermine each other in both directions. Rights will not always transfer over nor benefits like employment benefits.

Accepting homosexuality is going to be a big norm adjustment for people. Compared to decades ago, the gay community has made huge progress, but still not enough. Even in California - an extremely liberal state - the Prop 8 was closely split. You can look at that as glass half full, but doesn't change the fact that a lot of others share the same sentiment. A lot of it comes from misconceptions, myths, and religious propaganda.

I feel that if the gay community ever wanted to do this, they would have to get it through with a Constitutional amendment and for that to happen, they need to raise an exorbitant amount of money to complete a nation wide, cross demographic campaign that gets well known republicans and religious figures advocating their struggle over many many years.

The alternative is that you wait until all the baby-boomers and up die off.

 

[YamiB.]

I feel like the gay movement hasn't reached critical mass just yet and that's the reason why the law is divided. Let's fact it, the surest way to get the job done is through a constitutional amendment.

Each state having a say is clearly not going to work. One state not allowing it and another state allowing it will just undermine each other in both directions. Rights will not always transfer over nor benefits like employment benefits.

Accepting homosexuality is going to be a big norm adjustment for people. Compared to decades ago, the gay community has made huge progress, but still not enough. Even in California - an extremely liberal state - the Prop 8 was closely split. You can look at that as glass half full, but doesn't change the fact that a lot of others share the same sentiment. A lot of it comes from misconceptions, myths, and religious propaganda.

I feel that if the gay community ever wanted to do this, they would have to get it through with a Constitutional amendment and for that to happen, they need to raise an exorbitant amount of money to complete a nation wide, cross demographic campaign that gets well known republicans and religious figures advocating their struggle over many many years.

The alternative is that you wait until all the baby-boomers and up die off.

I think that one of the big problems is that say compared to the last big civil rights push to get equal rights for Black Americans they were a comparatively large minority against the GLBT community today. I think that what will need to happen is a mix of younger liberal straight people joining the movement and some baby boomers croaking.

I expect we'll need to do something through the federal government once we get most of the country to agree in order to pull along the South and Utah. A constitutional ammendment would be good, a supreme court case seems more likely. I doubt the current court makeup would rule the correct way though.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that one of the big problems is that say compared to the last big civil rights push to get equal rights for Black Americans they were a comparatively large minority against the GLBT community today. I think that what will need to happen is a mix of younger liberal straight people joining the movement and some baby boomers croaking.

I expect we'll need to do something through the federal government once we get most of the country to agree in order to pull along the South and Utah. A constitutional ammendment would be good, a supreme court case seems more likely. I doubt the current court makeup would rule the correct way though.

Actually gay rights is moving faster than Black Civil Rights. I have a theory as to why. Black people were a separate group, over there, no one white people mixed with socially, and certainly didn't have in their families. Everyone has a gay relative, co-worker or neighbor. Once gay people started coming out, then parents and others wanted equality for someone they knew personally and cared about. A good example would be V.P. Cheney. When it's his kid, maybe that same-sex marriage is a good idea after all.

 

[javajo]

Its not really a free country until everyone has the right to marry whomever they choose. What is funny is some Christians say you have to get married if you wanna get down, then prohibit ppl from getting married forcing them to get down outside of marriage, doh!

 

[YamiB.]

Actually gay rights is moving faster than Black Civil Rights. I have a theory as to why. Black people were a separate group, over there, no one white people mixed with socially, and certainly didn't have in their families. Everyone has a gay relative, co-worker or neighbor. Once gay people started coming out, then parents and others wanted equality for someone they knew personally and cared about. A good example would be V.P. Cheney. When it's his kid, maybe that same-sex marriage is a good idea after all.

This raises a question at what point would the start of pushes for black civil rights start? 1880 or 1890? I assume that abolition would be considered a separate realm.

It does seem that gay rights is moving faster. In my mind a possible explanation is that they are able to build off of the progress of past activists like those pushing for racial equality and feminists.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The term "Marriage" has been hijacked by those who only recognise male female couples.
A new term meaning the same thing but for all couples of all gender mixes seems to be needed.
One that is universal and can not be hijacked by any viewpoint.

 

[Aquitaine]

The term "Marriage" has been hijacked by those who only recognise male female couples.

A new term meaning the same thing but for all couples of all gender mixes seems to be needed.
One that is universal and can not be hijacked by any viewpoint.

Hmmmm, how about..... "Bondship" or summit like that?

 

[gnomon]

I know a term that will work.

Marriage.