Sanctity of Marriage

Extremes,

QUOTE (Extremes @ December 24, 2008, 23:06)

To start with: raising your voice (using increasingly large fonts) would not make your point any more valid, or get you more respect.

I still do not think you got my point:  You said and I again quote:

"I never said the majority on any issue is 'wrong' or that the majority is 'correct'."

However, you also said:

"... (this counrty (sic)) voted against (same-sex marriage) so when its (sic) not your way then the will of the people is wrong huh; let me see if there is something wrong with this type of thing oh yeah its (sic) called liberal" .... posted December 13

and also:

"How many times must the majority vote against gay and lesbian marriage before you people 'wake up and smell the coffee'?" ... posted December 24

again:

"Sadly, the liberal onslaught upon the human race has taken on the misconception that the meel being put aside assres victory for the insane" ... separate post December 24

"Majority rule is established as the best alternative to the dreamworld which you seem to inhabit"

But I said earlier:

"It is not about voting for a new government administration where the majority has the say... 'majority' or otherwise is contextual."

You said, and I again quote:

"I think that the minority should show a little more respect for the majority"

I never said the minority should veto the wish of the majority: like the earlier example, I never said I have to make sure everyone else to give up coffee and drink tea instead.

Again I reiterate: in some contexts, the majority can have the say, but in some other contexts, the minority cannot put up with agreeing with the majority, if part of the deal is to surrender to the arbitrary - or claimed - wishes of the majority: here I quote myself again:

"if... being a 'minority' (is) ... incongruent with society, thus have to be stopped, those 'minorities; in Germany in the late 1930s to mid 1940s would definitely have deserved what they got."

With all due respect, sir, I paraphrase:

How dare you deliver such a premise, that I am being so presumptious to think that, the majority should not be offended by what the minority believe? How dare you, sir, to assume that the minority would want the majority to give up its beliefs?

That is in fact the reason men have nipples!

just a question---i have always heard that a clitoris is nothing but the head of a penis.  it's the female equivalent of that part.  are you saying it's the other way around?  a penis is just an elongated clitoris? 

Confirms what I've thought my whole life.... I'm actually a Lesbian!!!

There is a God!!

And the Clitoris is the only "Sexually Pleasure Specific" organ in the Human Body (of either Gender)... Lucky Girls!!!

I think that the entire issue has been hijacked by the extremists of both viewpoints...

The Gay rights activists will have nothing less than accepting this as a "Traditional Marriage" even though they pride themselves as being non-traditional, and the Evangelicals and Eclesiasts absolutely will not accept fair and equitable treatment of others, even though they hear it preached from the Pulpit every sunday...

"Scorched Earth" strategies only work on the Battlefield, not in the court of public opinion... The Gay/Lesbian community sacrifices "Do-able" reform of Partner Rights, because of semantics, and I'm sure that the Good Reverend"at the Dias would be shocked to know how many parishoners are on the "Down Low", and yet sit in the pews saying a Pious "Amen!"... Even my marriage, a Civil service performed by a Justice of the Peace, isn't recognized by the church, and yet is recognized by the State of Texas...

If the same rights are granted to a Civil Domestic Partnership, does it lessen the value of the commitment if it's not called a "Marriage"? And how, Rev. Doctor, does Same sex Union detract from the commitment of the Unions of your Parishoners?

It certainly would seem that there's more than enough Hypocrisy to go around for both sides...

JMHO, speaking as a Lesbian trapped in a Mans Body of course!

Well what a shock.. I totally disagree   First off, I think characterizing the desires of the GLBT community in the same scorched earth way is totally off base.  No one is trying to make churches or religious organizations recognize their union.  Only the Government.  The reason they want it to be defined as marriage is that "Civil Unions" are not recognized by the federal government, only marriage is and the following are other differences.  Taken from a Gay Flaming Liberal Human RIghts Website, but I checked out the info and it is accurate.  It mostly uses Vermont's law as an example, but it applies to all civil unions as they are worded.

"What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?


Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.


Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.


Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.


Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.


But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.


1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.


2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.


3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side. 


Defense of Marriage Law

Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?


Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.


The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike. 

Defense of Marriage Law

Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?


Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.


The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike. "

Back to me.  I simply do not understand how giving Equal Protection under the Law, is anything less than what we are supposed to stand for as a nation.   I do not know how this position is extremist.  It seems pretty reasonable if you take peoples personal beliefs based on religion out of government policy.