dontamend.com

[RussSchultz]

Once again: don't quit your day job. You'll never make it as a legal scholar.

There already is a law on the books that confers the same legal rights as marriage in Vermont.

Guess what? This proposed amendment doesn't "undo" that as has already been discussed.

Or, are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and say "nananananananana" and ignore that discussion?

 

[Natoma]

Once again: don't quit your day job. You'll never make it as a legal scholar.

There already is a law on the books that confers the same legal rights as marriage in Vermont.

Guess what? This proposed amendment doesn't "undo" that as has already been discussed.

Or, are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and say "nananananananana" and ignore that discussion?

And as I said earlier when you brought this point up, only in Vermont are those rights granted. However, a civil union is not a marriage. A gay or lesbian couple will still be denied the 1,049 federal "rights, benefits and privileges" that are routinely given to married couples. Some of those rights include Social security and related programs, housing, and food stamps, veteran's benefits, taxation, employment benefits, immigration, and trade and commerce, in all states.

Civil Unions do not contain the same legal rights as marriage in the United States, and that is what we're fighting for. Not state by state. Federal recognition of our relationships, be it called "marriage" or "civil union."

 

[epicstruggle]

I guess i would also go for the easier fight if i was in your shoes. Having the courts give you the benefits of marriages by including same sex marriages into the definition of marriage.

However, the tough fight of making the people vote on laws that create and give rights to civil unions seems to be the choice that would get the most people behind you.

later,

 

[epicstruggle]

natoma: I got married in a traditional hindu marriage in South Africa. The govermnent there does not recognize it. So we really arent married. Many groups of people who live in SA like the zulus, hindus, muslims, other african tribes have been fighting for the last 10 or so years to get the legislature to give them the right to get married they way they want. A better, more honorable fight than getting liberal judges to just hand you something. BTW if im not mistaken about SA history, blacks were not allowed to marry during apartheid or something like that.

Look i think i speak for a very large percentage of people who feel that marriage(be it hindu, christian, muslim,...) should only be for man and women. HOWEVER i (and the group i speak for) would have no problem making laws giving the same rights to civil unions. I have not looked at the laws pertaning to civil unions in vermonent, but i would have probably supported them.

later,

 

[Legion]

natoma: I got married in a traditional hindu marriage in South Africa.

To time consuming. Not to mention my Fiance's father is deceased and his estate is in shambles.

Most likely my father and or I will be the one(s) to rectify the mistakes of my crack-headed-ass-mother-in-law.

http://www.actsofgord.com/Annoy/chapter1.gif

 

[epicstruggle]

ok so maybe not that traditional as my family did not require a dowry from her (i thought i was getting the best part of her family ).

later,

 

[Himself]

Hrm, to sum up:

1. Natoma wants to be accepted by everybody in general. He is proud of his relationship and wants it recognised. He wants the added acceptance that being called married would give him, he doesn't want to be segregated from normal society by having a "gay marriage" aka civil union aka legal term of the week, he wants to be just called married. That's me reading between the lines, he might put up with having the same rights with a different name, but he would rather be called married.

2. Natoma doesn't want to deal with legal BS when it comes to things like hospital visits, etc. While important, it seems to be number 8 on a top 10 list where acceptance is every item on the top 7.

3. Russ et al wants the term Marriage left alone. Reserve it for the religious aspects of the term. You want the same rights, go ahead, but don't step on my religious beliefs. And as an aside, ick on the whole gayness thing.

1. You can't legistlate acceptance. I am not considered normal by everybody and I don't have any excuse like being gay. So just deal with it, everybody has issues with fitting in and feeling part of the community at some level or another. Frankly, I can't stand holding hands with somebody while walking, it's annoying as hell, I can't see why you would want to do that.

2. You are better off arguing for what you want than butting into something other people have a stake in. Don't crash somebody else's party and expect to be welcomed with open arms. Go for the mastercard version of civil union, maybe that could just be step 1, trying to jump to step 30 in one leap is not likely to succeed. Don't be defeatist about it either. Laws can be changed, if this paticular proposed law makes people more secure about marriage, then they won't be so hostile to universal civil unions. Maybe down the road when both have been equal in every way for years, maybe they will be collapsed into one for the sake of efficiency.

3. There should be total separation of church and state. Frankly, I would rather a total separation of church altogether and toss the works on the moon or something, but that's just me. To me, marriage is just a legal term for a rather harsh contract, so I don't care much. I agree with Natoma that marriage is not necessarily always a religious term, but afaik it's always been a hetero term and it has been predominantly a religious associated term in North America and that's the society and times we are living in. So don't even bother bringing up some tribal crap in the deep forest of Africa 200 BC or something, it doesn't apply. There is enough of a religious association that it shouldn't be stepped on. Suggesting to everybody that the contract with their god that they signed up for to last all their lives should be rewritten and potentially devalued to be politically correct is not a great tactic.

As for the beastiality thing:

Ok, I respect the relationship part, it's not the same as beastiality, I have long standing male friends, I don't talk to sheep, I get that much of it. The sex part I find rather offputting, and it might as well be beastiality from my perspective, it's just as disgusting to contemplate, but that's none of my business. Frankly, I don't know what sexual practices all my friends engage in either, but if it's anything odd, they don't mention it. And that's the way I like it. With gays, there is a pretty good chance they engage in gay sex, so advertising how gay you are is like flashing a picture of somebody shagging a sheep every time you do it, pretty much the same feeling of disgust involved. If you want acceptance on that level then you are going to have to have broad acceptance of all sexual acts period. If you did shag sheep but never mentioned it, I wouldn't feel anything about it, but if you talked about the latest ewe you found or wore a t shirt saying sheep rocked or something I would have a hard time forgetting about it. There is such a thing as tact. Frankly, sex shouldn't define who you are, it's a part of your life, not the entire thing, I get the feeling that gays are all about being gay sometimes. I mean, get a life. I am not saying gays should remain in the closet, but going the other extreme isn't the answer to achieving acceptance. If I have to act normal, gays should too.

 

[Natoma]

natoma: I got married in a traditional hindu marriage in South Africa. The govermnent there does not recognize it. So we really arent married. Many groups of people who live in SA like the zulus, hindus, muslims, other african tribes have been fighting for the last 10 or so years to get the legislature to give them the right to get married they way they want. A better, more honorable fight than getting liberal judges to just hand you something. BTW if im not mistaken about SA history, blacks were not allowed to marry during apartheid or something like that.

There is no other way to "get married" in our country.

Look i think i speak for a very large percentage of people who feel that marriage(be it hindu, christian, muslim,...) should only be for man and women. HOWEVER i (and the group i speak for) would have no problem making laws giving the same rights to civil unions. I have not looked at the laws pertaning to civil unions in vermonent, but i would have probably supported them.

later,

There is also a very large percentage of the population that feels that marriage should only be for a christian man and woman. I'm not saying you don't have a right to feel the way you do, but you should realize that the very thing you wish to deny me and my partner is what people in your experiences wish to deny you. In your case the ethereal reason is your religion. In my case the ethereal reason is my sexuality.

 

[RussSchultz]

There is also a very large percentage of the population that feels that marriage should only be for a christian man and woman.

Now you're making shit up.

 

[Natoma]

Hrm, to sum up:

1. Natoma wants to be accepted by everybody in general. He is proud of his relationship and wants it recognised. He wants the added acceptance that being called married would give him, he doesn't want to be segregated from normal society by having a "gay marriage" aka civil union aka legal term of the week, he wants to be just called married. That's me reading between the lines, he might put up with having the same rights with a different name, but he would rather be called married.

True I would rather have the right to marriage, but if Civil Unions are given all the rights of marriage, including the federal rights given to marriage and the federal recognition of said marriages, then I would be happy with that as well.

But then again, "separate but equal," in theory, was also an equivalent way of living for blacks, and yet it turned out in practice to not be that way. So at this point, I am skeptical of the idea of Civil Unions supposedly having the same rights as marriage, because currently they do not.

2. Natoma doesn't want to deal with legal BS when it comes to things like hospital visits, etc. While important, it seems to be number 8 on a top 10 list where acceptance is every item on the top 7.

Actually acceptance is not on the list. The list of things conferred upon homosexual relationships entails the fruits of acceptance by our legislature.

3. Russ et al wants the term Marriage left alone. Reserve it for the religious aspects of the term. You want the same rights, go ahead, but don't step on my religious beliefs.

If marriage is a religious construct then the government has no right saying that gay men and women cannot participate in it. It is up to an individual church to recognize said marriages, and then the government to confer upon those marriages all the rights conferred upon all marriages, as per equal protection.

That is if it is indeed a religious construct.

And as an aside, ick on the whole gayness thing.

Hey I feel the same way about heterosexual sex but you don't see me going out of my way saying ick on the whole straight thing. That is completely unnecessary.

1. You can't legistlate acceptance. I am not considered normal by everybody and I don't have any excuse like being gay. So just deal with it, everybody has issues with fitting in and feeling part of the community at some level or another. Frankly, I can't stand holding hands with somebody while walking, it's annoying as hell, I can't see why you would want to do that.

And yet no one tries to legislate you from marrying your girlfriend.

2. You are better off arguing for what you want than butting into something other people have a stake in. Don't crash somebody else's party and expect to be welcomed with open arms. Go for the mastercard version of civil union, maybe that could just be step 1, trying to jump to step 30 in one leap is not likely to succeed. Don't be defeatist about it either. Laws can be changed, if this paticular proposed law makes people more secure about marriage, then they won't be so hostile to universal civil unions. Maybe down the road when both have been equal in every way for years, maybe they will be collapsed into one for the sake of efficiency.

We went for the mastercard version of civil union. Look up the history of the fight for Civil Unions in Vermont and Hawaii. The direct result of that fight was DOMA.

This is not the first time, nor the last time, this fight will be engaged.

Suggesting to everybody that the contract with their god that they signed up for to last all their lives should be rewritten and potentially devalued to be politically correct is not a great tactic.

And yet people get married all the time with no predisposition toward any particular god. What would all those religious types who see those marriages occur, but not for the purpose of building a contract with god, say about that?

Frankly, sex shouldn't define who you are, it's a part of your life, not the entire thing, I get the feeling that gays are all about being gay sometimes. I mean, get a life. I am not saying gays should remain in the closet, but going the other extreme isn't the answer to achieving acceptance. If I have to act normal, gays should too.

Sex does not define who gay people are. That's spurious reasoning for the same reason that saying that heterosexuals who subscribe to Playboy and watch porn are only defined by their sexuality.

Heterosexual sex is everywhere you look. On the TV, in ads, in the news, etc. And yet, it holds a different meaning than when homosexuals do the same thing? That's what I call a double standard.

I'm not turned on by heterosexual sex. It disgusts me in ways you probably only know when you think of homosexual sex. Yet I am not attempting to equate my disgust with heterosexual sex to the same level with beastiality.

 

[Natoma]

There is also a very large percentage of the population that feels that marriage should only be for a christian man and woman.

Now you're making shit up.

In epicstruggle's country, christians had once banned hindu marriages. Did you not read what he wrote earlier? His parents were banned from marrying because they were hindu. they had to pretend they were christian in order to get married.

I am not making this up.

 

[RussSchultz]

I see. South Africa is a large percentage of the population?

I doubt the 2/3rds of the world that isn't nominally Christian is really hot on the idea.
None of the people I've ever met have even suggested anything as ludicrous.
The Europeans are more liberal than Americans when it comes to these things, so I doubt you'll find wide support there, either. Maybe in South and Latin America where Catholicism is super powerful, though I haven't heard of the pope proclaiming such things since before the reformation.

So, pray tell, where is this large percentage of the world that supports Christian only marriages, while the rest of the heathens simply rut in their ignorance?

Lets take a poll: Anybody here advocate Christian only marraiges? Anybody heard of it outside a failed aparteid regime? Anybody?

 

[Sabastian]

Lets take a poll: Anybody here advocate Christian only marraiges? Anybody heard of it outside a failed aparteid regime? Anybody?

Never heard of it.

Just goes to show you that their motivation is to change the churches moral convictions.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Never heard of it.

 

[Natoma]

I see. South Africa is a large percentage of the population?

I doubt the 2/3rds of the world that isn't nominally Christian is really hot on the idea.

I was not saying the world. I was saying epicstruggle's country. I was speaking directly about the country he grew up in.

See the first half of his post.

natoma: I got married in a traditional hindu marriage in South Africa. The govermnent there does not recognize it. So we really arent married. Many groups of people who live in SA like the zulus, hindus, muslims, other african tribes have been fighting for the last 10 or so years to get the legislature to give them the right to get married they way they want. A better, more honorable fight than getting liberal judges to just hand you something. BTW if im not mistaken about SA history, blacks were not allowed to marry during apartheid or something like that.

So obviously I was speaking about South Africa. That is why I said the following:

There is also a very large percentage of the population that feels that marriage should only be for a christian man and woman.

The population within South Africa, as epicstruggle stated in his post. I was speaking in that context.

I can't speak for the world because frankly I don't know about the whole world. I can only speak about the USA, Canada, The Netherlands, and South Africa, because I know the situations in those countries.

 

[epicstruggle]

Ok let me clarify something. The laws preventing my marriage from being recognized, was enacted during the apartheid period. The reason it has not been struck down and new laws enacted is because South Africa has problems which are so much BIGGER than my marriage being recognized. There are estimates that between 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 have aids in south africa. Can you fathom how high that is. Think of how many friends you have, of them 1/3 of them have aids. thats not to even mention the amount of poverty. So I see why its taken a while for my issue to come to the fore front.

Im not to conceited to think that my problems should take center stage. I can wait. According to my wifes friends, the issue should be resolved within a year or two. (this was a while back so havent kept up with how its going)

later,

 

[epicstruggle]

13% of south africans are white. of these I would assume a very small group would want apartheid to come back.

later,

 

[RussSchultz]

The context of your post does not appear to refer to South Africa.

You changed context by saying "In this country", and followed it with "there is a large percentage that...". It wasn't apparent you were talking about South Africa because you appear to be lecturing him on "how it is". Presuming he's lived/grew up in South Africa, he'd know the conditions in South Africa, so I only assumed you weren't telling him how it is in south africa, but describing how it is in the US. Knowing that you live in the north east US, also lead me to believe you weren't lecturing on South Africa.

 

[Natoma]

The context of your post does not appear to refer to South Africa.

You changed context by saying "In this country", and followed it with "there is a large percentage that...". It wasn't apparent you were talking about South Africa because you appear to be lecturing him on "how it is". Presuming he's lived/grew up in South Africa, he'd know the conditions in South Africa, so I only assumed you weren't telling him how it is in south africa, but describing how it is in the US. Knowing that you live in the north east US, also lead me to believe you weren't lecturing on South Africa.

Well I'm telling you now that I was referring to South Africa. I would never argue that the people in this country only want marriage to be of the christian variety because that is just obviously not true. So again, I was speaking about South Africa.

My first response was saying that there is no other way to get married in the United States, in response to him saying there were other ways to get married in South Africa. The second half of his post stated that a very large percentage of the people (hindu, christian, muslim) feel that marriage should only be for a man and a woman. I took that to mean that he was still referring to South Africa.

So in my response, I stated that the population feels that marriage should only be for a christian man and a woman. If I meant the USA I would have said, in my country, or in our country. But since I did not state that, I was still referring to South Africa. Anyways, I hope this clears things up.

 

[Natoma]

Ok let me clarify something. The laws preventing my marriage from being recognized, was enacted during the apartheid period. The reason it has not been struck down and new laws enacted is because South Africa has problems which are so much BIGGER than my marriage being recognized. There are estimates that between 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 have aids in south africa. Can you fathom how high that is. Think of how many friends you have, of them 1/3 of them have aids. thats not to even mention the amount of poverty. So I see why its taken a while for my issue to come to the fore front.

Im not to conceited to think that my problems should take center stage. I can wait. According to my wifes friends, the issue should be resolved within a year or two. (this was a while back so havent kept up with how its going)

later,

At least you have the knowledge that the anti-marriage laws are finally coming off the books epic. You don't have to fight for them. Others entered that struggle for you, and you are now seeing the fruits of those struggles. The same cannot be said for the USA at this time unfortunately.