Comments on KALLISTI: An Apple in Pandemonium: Marriage Equality (AKA Kayleigh's Fury of Politica...

I wholehearted agree with what you've said. :)...

2009-11-06T00:50:30.143-05:00

I wholehearted agree with what you've said. :) This is definitely a 1st Amendment issue, as well as an issue of all citizens being treated equally under the law.

Those in the Hellenic community who cling to the so-called "traditional" idea of marriage simply choose to ignore the differences between now and then. Perhaps they were no gay marriages back then because there simply wasn't a need. Homosexuality was arguably better tolerated in ancient times, and there were no special rights or benefits attached to marriage beyond a husband's control of his wife and any assets she brought to the marriage.

But today, marriage does have certain privileges that cannot be had in any other way. And even agreements forged with a lawyer have been turned down/overruled by family members/courts/etc. because without marriage, your partner is not next of kin. We also now have a majority religion filled with "one true way-ists" who insist that homosexuality is a perversion and justify making gays second class citizens with their religious bigotry.

Quite simply, gays today are being treated as second-class citizens by their own government and by many of their countrymen. This is not the freedom our nation likes to brag about. These are not the ideals people have fought and died for. There is no non-religious reason to deny gays equal rights...

Except the one people don't want to admit... People who don't necessarily believe that homosexuality is wrong, but they don't think that gays deserve the benefits they themselves enjoy. People who think that letting gays file jointly on their taxes means that they as straight person are somehow put upon "to support their lifestyle." *rolls eyes*

In the end it's either religious bigotry or selfish greed, neither of which I want any part of. And I will not support any organization that does not treat gays as the equal citizens they ought to be, in the US or anywhere else.

Anonymous #2 here again. "civil unions don...

2009-11-06T00:33:34.780-05:00

Anonymous #2 here again.

"civil unions don't necessarily grant hospital visitation rights or health care consolidation. Marriages do" - @Kayleigh I am proposing that both agreements give the same rights. The only difference is what they are called. I believe that there are both gays and straights who don't like the term marriage, just as there are those to whom it means a great deal. While both forms differ only in terminology, neither is limited to gays, straights, or non-sexually inclined couples. These unions are open to all of these, including those who can now get married, and to gays who wish to get married. - @Ærinndís Freyjadóttir As far as separate but equal, any separation will be decided by the individuals involved, as it is they who will be choosing what form to acquire and what to call their union.

"We have two forms at the county courthouse, ...

2009-11-04T22:34:29.137-05:00

"We have two forms at the county courthouse, one is called a civil union and one is called a marriage license. "

Sorry but I had to chuckle at this one. The phrase "separate but equal" came to mind, and, well we all know how it went last time they tried that.

I'm rather upset at this myself even if I don't entirely agree with homosexuality. No one should have to suffer because of another's religious convictions. -.-

Anonymous #2, civil unions don't necessarily g...

2009-11-04T21:31:35.169-05:00

Anonymous #2, civil unions don't necessarily grant hospital visitation rights or health care consolidation. Marriages do. Same-sex couples don't just want the name ... they want the legal security that goes along with it. Unfortunately, "separate but equal" was disproven decades ago --- the only alternative solution I could see would involve forcing both heterosexual and homosexual couples to get civil unions and save the marriage language for religious institutions.

"the wrong side of this issue". Because...

2009-11-04T21:14:13.934-05:00

"the wrong side of this issue". Because there's only one right view.

How about this. We undo all the damage gay marriage activists have done, by allowing civil unions once again. We have two forms at the county courthouse, one is called a civil union and one is called a marriage license. Since this issue is not at all about human rights, but about a word which we all know the meaning of, we now have two ways to go about getting this legal agreement. Whether gay or straight is irrelevant. Either can apply with either form; the only difference is which name the couple wants to call their agreement. Crucial to this is that sexuality is irrelevant. You don't get a prize or recognition for having sex or not having sex, and the deal is valid without validation of "consummation". All the rights currently given to married couples go with the territory that comes with either of these forms/agreements/words.

How about that?

Excellent post. It is wrong to let states make the...

2009-11-04T16:07:43.057-05:00

Excellent post. It is wrong to let states make these decisions. After all, it is the states who would not abolish slavery - it took the Federal government to do that. Left up to states, we'd still have segregation (at least, if not slavery) and we'd still likely not have universal suffrage in all 50 states. People should not be able to vote to suspend civil rights to groups they do not approve of. The Declaration of Independence says "ALL" are equal, and either they are, or we'd best change the wording. Thanks for speaking out!

We can't always choose what state we live in, ...

2009-11-04T14:54:59.650-05:00

We can't always choose what state we live in, but we can choose which religious organizations to be part of. I could never stomach being in a group that on the wrong side of this issue.

The thing that bothers me about this is the fact t...

2009-11-04T13:58:34.556-05:00

The thing that bothers me about this is the fact that we're allowing referendums for popular vote for a minority group. This isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they set up the constitution (where I always like to point out that the first Amendment trumps the first Commandment). We had referendums in regards to slavery, and it went nowhere until Lincoln was elected. The Bible was also used to justify slavery. If we still allowed referendums for things like the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Rights Amendment it would instead have certain states be more progressive than others. In the latter we had the LDS Church use the bible for opposing it. I am furious at what happened at Maine, to the point of tears. I suffered the same outrage when this happened in my home state of CA.
-Darlene