Whew, us straight folks dodged a bullet there! Can’t have gays “ruining” marriage in some indefinable way! Marriages should be ruined by infidelity, money problems and stalking.
My state sucks.
What a bunch of morons. You’d think they’d at least come up with some rationalizations that hadn’t been heavily discussed and shot down.
Conservatives: keep this in mind next time you’re tempted to write off Washington as an all-liberal state.
Really, why can’t homosexuals just sign contracts with each other instead of pushing for the right to be ‘married’? I have nothing against homosexuals but I think wanting to have their relationships validated by an institution traditionally between a man and a woman is unnecessary and annoying. They can go create their own institution and try having it recognised under that new label.
Yeah, they could call it garriage or something.
Because separate but equal doesn’t work.
The big push for this is the part of marriage that makes up the Family Rights parts of law.
Let’s say before I got married, my then girlfriend was in a serious accident, where the doctors decreed “Family Visits Only.” I wouldn’t be able to visit her. That may not seem like a big deal, but I wouldn’t be able to make any decisions regarding her health care. If a man and woman cohabitate for a period of seven or more years, they have a Common Law Marriage, which, you guessed it, is defined as the union of a man and a woman.
Gay couples have no legal rights in this matter. Because two gay people cannot be married (even common law) they get really fucked over when you need to deal with next-of-kin issues.
I feel the same way about interracial marriages. Much like heterosexuality, I consider ethnicity to be sacrosanct. The fact that the government refuses to discriminate between my marriage and Rimbo’s vile union offends me personally. Oh, and Jesus.
Bingo. Especially given how tightly integrated marriage is with regard to many other benefits, e.g., insurance.
Gayriage, and of course, lesbiage.
Woman/snake marriage would be herpiage.
Not sure what to call man/boxturtle marriage, though.
Built to last.
Make up an institution, press for it to be accepted into other things, rather than trying to mangle an institution meant for man and woman, with related religious/judicial roots.
I like the irony of gay ‘rights’. How about the right for heterosexuals to have their heterosexual institutions free from homosexual intrusion? I also like how gays say it’s free speech and a right to demonstrate and say that homosexuals should be accepted, but ‘discrimination’ or hate speech when heterosexuals demonstrate to say that homosexual relations are wrong. Hilarious.
Tell me, what do you think of “black folks?”
What kind of turtle would you fuck, if you know, you had to fuck a turtle? Like, say you’ve been taken hostage by Al Qaeda in a zoo there’s a gun to your head.
I pick sea turtle.
So long as the institution is protected by the government and confers certain benefits on those party to it, it is no longer simply a “heterosexual” institution, but an institution of the state.
As for “intrusion”, I don’t see what how my marriage is affected by anyone else getting married. It is neither cheapened nor degraded nor made less important.
Funny, I’ve been married for 11 years (and in Ma, which is where the whole Gay Marriage thing became legal.) So far my marriage is just me and my wife. No gays have intruded on my marriage.
But back to your original point, it’s because defining a marriage as a union of a man and woman was deemed unconsitutional (at least in MA) because the constitution forbids discrimination based on sex. And our state supreme court agreed with two plaintiffs that the state denying them a marriage license because they were both female that that was discrimination based on sex. They kicked it back to the legislature to try and get an ammendment passed to define marriage as union based between man and woman, and our fearless legislature decided this one can wait until after this October’s elections.
All rights pertaining to insurance, legal documents, next-of-kin, inheritance, etc. are based on relation by marriage. I can’t imagine getting every entity that uses marriage to determine, well, anything to change something based on a new union class.
So, you should be convincing your congressman to change the constitution, and that hasn’t been doing to well.
Destarius, I don’t believe the definition of a (legal) marriage should be an institution limited to a man and a woman, although my state currently has this restriction. In civil affairs, marriage is a legal category that provides useful information for administration of wills, who holds claim to a property, and stuff like that. Of course, churches are able to define a church-recognized marriage using whatever terms that are comfortable for them; they just may not have legal recognition.
Simply because men & women historically have benefitted from this institution doesn’t mean it should be limited to them. That’s why living in a democracy where laws can change over time is a privilege. I think expanding the definition to include any two consenting adults is fine. I think we should replace the term marriage with civil union for all legal transactions; your place of worship can pronounce you married if you meet their criteria.
But whenever a group has sought to expand membership in a social category, there’s always been a group of citizens who say “This is the way its always been, so don’t fuck with it. Go do your own thing, but don’t bother us.” If we listened to these people, women & blacks wouldn’t be able to vote or attend colleges respected by mainstream society. I feel bad that you are victimized by our attempts to increase gay rights, but I believe our country is stronger when it shows consideration and inclusivity towards more citizens rather than fewer.
Guess I must be becoming an unreasonable old git in my old age.
“Stay off my marriage lawn!”