What do you think of the controversy over same-sex marriage?

Personally, I'm definitely on the hetero side of things... BUT I think that two people who love one another and are willing to make a lifetime commitment to one another, should be allowed to do so via legal means, and be eligible for all the rights implicit in such a commitment. I know some people who would make marriages with a same-sex partner that certainly would be far more exemplary than some traditional marriages. (Case in point: the lesbian couple who were the first to marry in San Francisco... they have been together for 51 years!)

But the word "marriage" seems to be a sticking point. Perhaps it would resolve the issue in SOME minds if we just drop the word Marriage from legal documents... and call ALL such pairings "Civil Union", though allowing all the rights and responsibilities currently accrued to "Marriage"... and leave the word marriage to the churches where such terminology is more appropriate. (Separation of Church and State?)

These are my current thoughts on the subject... though I'm still working it through.

...living in Mass, of course, puts us in the center of alot of arguing right now....

..but i gotta say i was elated when the court gave its decision and told the legislature........it's marriage or nothing.....

....i rejoice for gays, of course, but i rejoice for all of us who have and are discriminated against...and that is pretty much all of us for one reason or another....every time a legal barrier falls, we are all one step or more closer to being free from oppression....

..i really hear what you're saying, Wyld....it's very difficult for alot of people to accept and that is not unimportant.....in a democracy, to be free, we ought to listen to everyone.....and there may be many reasons why folks don't want to see this happen....

...but, for me, i think it's time....to take a deep breath, let go and see what happens....... if not for the rights of everyone, then to get the government out of a very personal part of our lives....

I've thought about this too, dropping the word "marriage" but the word "marriage" doesn't literally mean a husband and wife. It's simply the "joining" of two entities.

I agree that regardless of gender of spouse, people should be "entitled" to each other's health benefits, pensions, etc. There's that other word, "entitled."

And I agree that some same/gender marriages are probably a whole lot better than some hetero marriages. Then again, some hetero marriages can be much better than others. I also know one guy who claims to be "deeply committed" but should be committed for committing adultery!

Maybe we need to come up with words that don't stick in peoples' throats.

Thank you, KJ: <u>what you said.</u> I was trying to say that same thing to someone at work this morning. I think I finally got through, but the guy, usually pretty good on civil liberty issues, wasn't seeing it. He's mad and worried that the issue coming up this year will drive people to the Rs (and it may). He was saying, "Why can't people tone it down; why can't they wait?" I also believe it was the word "marriage" that threw him. I said, "What if you and your wife weren't allowed to be married and she couldn't get medical insurance, or what if she was dying and you weren't even allowed to visit her in the hospital? Wouldn't you fight that as hard as you could?" He agreed but still is worried about the impact of all this on the election. I don't think it has to affect the Dems badly as long as the candidate treads carefully and keeps the heat on about the economy, war, and overall bad leadership.

Ceashel, I don't understand the part about not being allowed to visit a dying patient in the hospital. Can you please explain that part for me?

Thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terrie:

...the part about not being allowed to visit a dying patient in the hospital...
Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terrie... in most places in the US, when a patient is dying, the only allowed visitors are the "next of kin" which according to law would include a spouse, a child, a parent, or a sibling. A same-sex partner would not be included.

A friend of mine, whose life-partner was dying of AIDS, was not permitted to see him, though the parents and siblings had disowned him. My friend did manage to pull some strings, and his partner did not die alone... but that he HAD to pull strings, that is where the laws and rules need to be changed.

Wyld, thanks. I had no idea. Not only is it stupid, but.. what a stupid rule!

When my mother was brain-dead (for 3 weeks!) it seemed that everyone and his brother was coming in and out. We had us kids, all her friends, my sister-in-law and her husband, my in-laws, all except my own kids. I brought in a doctor-friend of mine who was not my mother's doctor. Cousins she hadn't seen in ages, not to metion the neighbors!

And then there was the friend who worked as an ICU nurse in another hospital who went in (without my being there or even notifying the hospital of her visit). She went in there to "spy" and give me an "honest" report of my mother's real condition.

I am truly amazed that hospitals actually stick to some really stupid, antiquated "rules."

Thanks for the eye-opener!

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Terrie on Feb 19, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

I, too, am hopelessly hetero, but I have no problem with gay marriages, civil unions, or whatever they decide to call it. I DO have a problem, however, when the President or any other defender of the status quo points to gay marriage as destroying families and family values without speaking to the fact that 50% of "sacred" heterosexual marriages end in divorce! What does that do for families?

Wyld, thanks! I hadn't been back to see Terrie's question. Terrie, it's not exactly the hospital's fault--if the family insists on barring the partner, the hospital must go by their wishes, legally, and can be sued for big bucks if they don't. Also, if the partner is the one who knows what the patient wants re. 'extraordinary measures,' the family can override him/her. It's been a big issue with Aids.

Shelley, thanks. I didn't know (or maybe just never thought about) that issue. In my mind, that's just plain wrong, maybe out of selfishness of the family or trying to, for one last time, place blame. Revenge against the person the family feels caused the AIDS?

I think the SO should be there, regardless if they are same-sex or hetero.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 2 times, lastly by Terrie on Feb 25, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

I think it's just fine. I know one couple who went to VT to do the civil union thing and they also registered as domestic partners locally. They had actually been at the forefront of getting their town to pass a domestic partners act. They had a reception at their home after their honeymoon in VT and regard themselves as married. What's interesting is that they are not anxious to see the legalization of gay marriage become a polarizing fight. They feel that they stand to lose more than gain by having this issue out there now and would prefer to see the civil union issue develop further. They're both pretty politcally active and astute, so I give what they say a lot of credence. Gay marriage is fine with me, but half a loaf is better than none. If the issue of gay marriage brings on a rash of state laws banning it and even banning civil unions, then that would be very sad.

Civil union or marriage ... and the fact that one state's "civil union" is not recognized by other states is disturbing to say the least, and not just from the gay issue. Does this mean that because my husband and I were married by a JP in Texas, rather than a minister, that my marriage (or civil union?) may not be recognized in Michigan. Is our marriage recognized only because we are NOT same sex?

And like someone said earlier, it's not like hetero marriages are all that stable.

Gay or straight, married or not, it should be your choice who has responsibility for you if you become too ill to care for yourself. These matters need to be taken care of legally before it's too late, at least to whatever extent they can be as things stand right now.

I, too, think the most poignant point is when a long-term life partner is denied access due to prejudice on the family's part.

Bottom line ... wish ALL married people would take their vows seriously AND if two people want to make that kind of commitment to each other, they should be allowed to.

Well said Pam!
Did you guys here what the monkey said today?
I think this may be a smoke screen to make sure that the thing passes so that Arnold can be prez...

Gus

just came across this Political Cartoon ...

<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/laugh.gif" width=15 height=15> That's exactly it. Let's hope that the wedding ring really will backfire and lure him to (into) Mt. Doom.