Fridae

"It's not that they're discriminatory or bigoted. They just draw the line at what they think marriage should be."

Oh fuck you.

Ah, Lokies, ever the eloquent respondent.

As an American, this troubles me for a reason that many may find surprising. Although I wasn't really against it, I didn't initially support gay marriage, either (for very complex reasons), which runs counter to most people's presumptions. I'm gay, therefore I must automatically support gay marriage, right?

Well, I do now, but not because I'm gay.

America is built partially on the separation of church and state, at least in theory. In actual practice, however, religion has found its way into all sorts of nooks and crannies. So oddly enough, even though marriage is ostensibly a religious convention (at least in America), it's also a civil one: Married couples enjoy a vast sea of ancillary benefits at all levels of government. Lower tax brackets, joint income tax filing, right of survivorship, hospital visitation rights, the list goes on and on. There are over 1,000 benefits afforded to married couples.

I have no problem with any church granting or denying the marriage ceremony to any couple it chooses. I don't care much for organized religion in general, but they can do whatever they want within their organization.

Where I have a problem is with the concept of civil marriage, and in the United States, a nation presumably founded on the proposition that all men are created equal (thanks, Mr. Lincoln!) and a nation that guarantees its citizens due process and that has historically declared that "separate but equal" doesn't work, that in this country, grants civil marriages to some of its citizens but not to others.

Not that long ago, interracial marriages were illegal in most of the US. However, just this week, a justice of the peace in the state of Louisiana was forced to resign after refusing to grant a marriage license to an interracial couple. His actions were met with national outrage. So social attitudes DO change, they just do so slowly.

The fact that gay marriage is even on ballots is a partial victory. Thirty years ago, even suggesting that people put the idea of same-sex marriage to a public referendum would never have even entered the public discourse. Moreover, "almost 53%" isn't exactly a landslide victory; it's not even a solid majority. And with every passing year, the percentage of voters opposing gay marriage shrinks. So there is a silver lining to be found behind this cloud.

Ultimately, a person's civil rights cannot be decided in the voting booth, and this is what I find so troubling. You can't put granting or rescinding civil rights to a popular vote! Why more Americans don't grasp this fundamental truth is quite beyond me, frankly. What if a woman's right to vote had been on a ballot to be decided by the only lawful voters of the day -- men? Popular vote cannot be used to grant or deny civil rights.

This is a disappointment, but slow progress will continue unabated, mark my words. Gay marriage will eventually be quite legal in the United States. Its opponents even realize and concede this point, and are really only forestalling the inevitable.

haha, pardon my irrational response, but i still think that was deemed fit as a response. and it has always been about time ain't?

"They just draw the line"

There are no lines in equality.

its the cold weather states in the U.S. (Iowa included) that are at least bringing this up for a vote... we are sympathic to marriage for everyone cause we hate for anyone to have to spend the bleak cold winter months alone... also we tolerate gay men more cause they have to cover themselves up in coats and sweaters and boots

cause I am a guy from Michigan that knows these things...

Post no. 2; thanks for a clear explanation of the situation in the USA.

Re: "ultimately, a person's civil rights cannot be decided in the voting booth, and this is what I find so troubling. You can't put granting or rescinding civil rights to a popular vote!"

This is what I also found surprising about the prop. 8 vote. If the (State) constitution is there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, how can it so easily be altered to discriminate on the basis of a tiny (2% in that case) majority? Sounds like there's something wrong with the system there.

I was really surprised to hear there are still officials who discriminate against mixed-race marriage.

Please check out the ads the people were running against gay marrige

http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/index.php?home=1

It really came down to the TV ads saying teachers would be teaching this to kids as young as kindergarten. That was the final straw. With out that it would have won.

We are a very prejudice state that has a 98% white population of European decent. I am not sure I ever even saw a black person before I was a teenager and know that there was such a thing as a queer....Well in another decade or so Maine will catch up if the US still exists.

"There are no lines in equality."

Actually, there are two of them... they're parallel. See: =

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)



In truth, your comment is quite to the point and correct.

Re: #8

thanks...it's fun having coffee coming out my nose on a friday morning.

You forgot to mention in your first comment the fact that marriage is defined as a man and a woman only in religions. As such a CIVIL marriage without religious connotations should not be an issue.

But then, the clear separation of church and state is somehow blurred in the minds of the populous.

I am sure to be verbally assaulted for this, but if marriage has no definition, other than what we want it to be, it can mean anything.


I am a gay man and would certainly benefit from the concept of gay "marriage", but the fact remains marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman.

If it is simply two people that love each other, then why can't it be three people ( there are laws against bigamy, do the violate the rights of bigamists? or what if two cousins or siblings wish to marry, is that bigotry against them or hell, why dont we allow those who have attained the age of majority to marry a minor, after all, it is only love. Who is to define if our love is right or wrong?)

Marriage in all cases in America is in fact a regulated priviledge, not a right. Each state grants a license to marry, much like they do to drive a car or own a pet and their are requirements that must be met for those. Religious issues are very much separate from this. A religious ceremony can occur only after a proper civil license is granted.

Most of the rights that marriage grants a spouse can be easily granted by simple and inexpensive legal instruments, such as a durable power of attorney, joint bank accounts, health care proxies, agent to control disposition ( for funerals), wills, named beneficiary, and other legal devices that are in many cases free or low cost.

I would prefer the goverment leave my retirement alone and privatize social security, so that I can decide who gets my funds, when I die, not the govt.

At some point we have to realize that we live in a society in which we all must live together. We cannot bend and twist every institution to conform to the wishes and desires of a few.

One of the earliest lessons I learned in life is if you want to get along, go along and all will be just fine. It has worked very well for me for 41 years. Forcing the will of the minority on the majority is very counterproductive.

I think of a law in NY state that now allows women to go topless in state parks, because men were allowed to take their shirt off. The judge would have been smarter to simply say, your point is valid - men put your shirts back on, but no, he let woman go topless in state parks and lowered civil society another step.

Remember we cannot cater to every whim and wish of we would have chaos. I prefer order.

Post #10: Fridae is not Fox News. We don't verbally assault anyone ....if what they are talking about are just honest presentation of facts, not drivel or sensationalism :-) You've put yr point across very well, so we can understand from the voters pov.

Post #2 & #6: Its more due to the culture than religion or even Constitution...American culture, despite its apparent open-mindedness, are indeed homophobic...at times misogynist, to a certain degree, if one observes carefully. Hell, fr the attitude they gave their current President one can easily tell American society is still inherantly racist....it's very difficult to get rid of roots lol, which in the case of USA, it's..Puritan.

Post 10. Some really interesting thoughts, however, the problem in my mind is that the government (at least in the USA) has gotten involved in every aspect of a peoples lives. We have laws for everything. That is why at this point in my life I prefer to live as much as possible ignoring the government. It has ceased to have any relevance to its citizens as it is all about control. The simple solution to the whole marriage" issue is to have the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions with designated rights would be granted to all regardless of gender. These individuals would live in regards to their individual preferences and the govenment would have not say in the arrangement. Marriages would be a religious affair with no validity in law. They would have to be registered as a civil union to have to be binding in law. In many countries a marriage is not even recognized until registered with the government. That, in effect, makes it a civil union. This whole marriage thing goes back to religion. Isn't it amazing that in the 1800's and earlier there was a definite lack of recording of births and deaths but there was a great accounting and recording of marriages. In the US it is not illegal to sleep or live with your cousin, brother or sister. It is just illegal to get married to them. Seems like a joke since really the government can't really control that actions of people. The just try to control thru legal means that can be easily bypassed if desired. In my mind the government has no business telling people how they should live or with whom they should live or share their bed. It is about control of one group over another group. The older I get the less I am concerned with anything the government has to say. As was said you can get the legal documents to make anything work. The major factor is tax and immigrations benenfits. If just once the US government could get anything right I would be appreciative.

RE: Post 10

I too believe that the government has become far too intrusive into the lives of its' citizens.

Somehow many American citizens today are of the belief that our federal government grants us our rights and that it exists to solve every social issu. when in fact the government exists due to the generous spirit of its citizenery that grants it very limited powers under our Federal Constitution. Those powers not granted specifically to the Federal Govt in the Constitution are granted to the states.

The Bill of Rights is meant as a protection against the government encroaching on our God given rights under natural law.

The scary thing is that some ( including our current president) consider the Constitution a listing of "negative rights" that tells us what the government cannot due, rather than telling us what the government can do. That is the real problem.

Our founding fathers understood the tryannical nature of power. That the purest interest is self-interest and that those in power tend to wish to remain in power and often will go to great lengths to gain more power and control over others ( such as our current administration seeking to "take over" health care, much as they have the domestic automobile industry, the railroads and retirement funding).

Our citizenry needs to be educated ( and not by the federal govt) to provide for themselves, not rely on government to do for them. We cannot continue to vote for self-interest, we have to vote for the interest of our entire country. It has long be said that as soon as the politicians realize they can secure their own power and comfort by giving their constituents everything they want that we will in fact begin to ask for everything we want and the role of a self empowered citizenry will be subsumed into a nation of beggars and serfs.

It is not wise to look to the govt to do for you. As a govt that can give you everything you want or need is strong enough to take away every liberty that we have.

I have never been so worried for the future of the United States than I have at this point in time. I dont want to see any form of statist government taking control over my thoughts or actions and my ability to freely pursue my happiness and success.

As a Mainer, abroad in Taiwan, I am deeply ashamed! The Great State of Maine is no longer great.

It's a shame to hear but I think we'll get there...

self proclaimed 'marriage' activists would be better spending their time attaining the possible...as did the British.. marriage who needs it? it proves nothing most end in the divorce courts any way or bashed by their partners or screwing around on them, go for a solution out side of old style marriage, one where Gays & Straights, those in Monogomous & Polygamous relationships can all access and benefit by, it's this hysterical need to 'marry' it is sad and pathetic and has nothing valid to offer, oh they say "it's about equal rights" well I say create some alternative where all can have equal access and the right to participate in not just monogomists...simple..end the marriage myth

I wouldn't even want, let alone dare, to second-guess the American citizens commenting squarely on this issue in the US, being quite overwhelmed by the complexity of states, and the state of complexities there. But i think Malaysia's well-versed "Aput" has hit the nail on the head. If you can clearly separate the concepts of civil and religious "marriage", things would be easier. Of course, the use of the word Union or Partnership is expedient, but for some couples, the "M" word is obviously everything.
I feel that securing the general, vital, practical, legal rights for the pair, are the real issue and challenge for Singapore LGBTs. "Marriage" itself is ultimately what you make of it, in your personal life, not what others think.
I still personally define "marriage", certainly religious marriage, as an established heterosexual institution, as some others here do.
However, although i am a Christian, i don't have a problem with this issue ultimately being decided secularly and democratically in multi-religious Singapore, because that's the way things are done in this little Republic, once a British colony. And i think that's good, because true power in religion should not be political or physical, but spiritual. Of course, Singapore has a unique, political framework, and though developed, it is not a "Western" nation, not in the so-called "heartlands", not yet anyway. These are realities that both Westerners staying here, and the fully Western-oriented locals will have to face, if they want to achieve more than just understandably letting off steam about "rights".

I was surprised to learn that even Australian LGBTs have been divided on making the "marriage" word an issue in their quest. Perhaps it's because, if Civil Partnership or Union is proposed for ANY two individuals by law, with ALL the general legal rights covered, more would fight for this without reservations. This is certainly true for most of Asia. In Singapore at least, the conservatives also include those in non-monotheistic religions, as well as the traditional, heterosexual agnostics or atheists. I'm not sure that the government isn't right to move with some caution. Well, at least the fact that LKY said as much as he did, was a surprise to me. A vote would be interesting, but for "marriage"? You can try...
If you can somehow make a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage for same-sex couples, you make room for the traditional communities to make room for ANY two who want to "tie the knot legally", even just two good friends. How inclusive is that. But the legal benefits must be clear and equitable to make it worthwhile.
However, if the younger generation in Singapore can clinch the "marriage" word as Canada has, through due process, fine. But if not, and we achieve legally-solid Civil Partnerships earlier for all, through greater support, who can stop our eloquent "Lokies" from calling it "marriage" if he wants to? - this is not Iran after all. In the end - as long as you have the major legal issues secured for your loved one's sake - isn't what you know to be true, real and faithful about your special lifetime-relationship the thing that really matters?