Gay Marriage

[x Trevor x]

Okay this is something that has come to mind quite a few times. I know that in most places gay marriage isn't legal however just because the govornment says we can't marry doesn't mean we can't marry.

 

Who is to stop us from dressing up and having a nice ceremony in the backyard and simply having a name change? Of course there would be no benefits and it's still unfair but if it's all about an expression of love this should be enough.

 

What do you guys think?

[Tiger]

I'm going with both. I won't marry someone I don't love. I also would like the benefits. Since I'm in a country that's unlikely to have gay marriage in my lifetime, I'm more than willing to move elsewhere...

[Bumblebee]

I would like to get married some day, but I would love to have the same benefits as the str8 marriages hold

[DragonFire]

Well, I'd never marry or enter into a commitment cerimony (which in UK is almost legally the same thing) without love... whatever the benefits are.

 

Once you have that partner though, then why not take the benefits as well.

[TetRefine]

I do not get why people have to have a ceremony and all that stuff to say 'I'm committed to you'. I don't think getting "married" makes you any more committed to your significant other. I don't need a priest or government official to tell me I'm committed. Thats bullshit. If I'm committed, I will show it through my actions. Why do you need a whole little ceremony to show it? I don't get it. IF you wanna get married, fine, go for it. But if you are marrying just to try and show that you are committed, I think thats wrong. You should be able to show that you are regardless of a ring on a finger or not.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TetRefine

[Tipdin]

My parents were wonderful to me and my partner. We, of course, couldn't legally marry in Minnesota, and back then there was almost no place that would preform a religious ceremony for us. So we had the "after-party" anyway. We sent out invites and it was a blast.

 

Here is my take on gay marriage:

 

A wedding and a marriage should be separate issues for everyone and cannot be performed at the same time.

 

Wedding = religious

Marriage = legal

Or chose whatever words you prefer.

 

A marriage should be no different than buying real estate. You go into an office, sign a bunch of papers and bingo, you're done. There should be no Justice of the Peace, no blessing, no elevation of the situation beyond a legal document signing - just like when you buy a house or sell a chunk of land. It is a legal issue.

 

Now. If folks want a blessing, or some kind of religious ceremony, that's fine - you can even do that without being legally locked together. It is a religious issue.

 

The two things SHOULD be separate and distinct issues that cannot replace each other.

 

Churches that are not gay supportive can practice their religion as they see fit, and churches that are gay supportive can operate as they see fit as well.

 

Becoming one operating unit in the eyes of the law happens every day - we call them corporations. I owned several of them over the years. I was a single operating unit in the eyes of the law, when I owned a telephone answering service with my parents. I was a single operating unit in the eyes of the law, when I owned a house restoration business with a friend of mine. I was a single operating unit in the eyes of the law, when I owned a construction company with my boyfriend.

 

Becoming one operating unit in the eyes of the law happens all the time - and SHOULD be able to happen - if two people want to become one LEGAL unit, they should be able to do so.

 

If two people want to share a religious ceremony with friends and family, they SHOULD be able to do so. It simply has nothing to do with the law.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Tipdin

[Stargazer]

While it may not have anything to do with the law as far as commitment goes, if you're in a committed relationship and you're gay, you DO have to take the law into consideration in the places gay marriage isn't recognized. I'm speaking in terms of property, children, wills, and things of that nature. It's important to be prepared with legal documentation just in case.

 

Going back to Trevor's original question ... Love all the way!

[Tipdin]

While it may not have anything to do with the law as far as commitment goes, if you're in a committed relationship and you're gay, you DO have to take the law into consideration in the places gay marriage isn't recognized. I'm speaking in terms of property, children, wills, and things of that nature. It's important to be prepared with legal documentation just in case.

 

Going back to Trevor's original question ... Love all the way!

 

You're quite correct. My partner and I have spent a good deal of money trying to insure that our wishes and plans are protected. We've signed over power of attorney, medical power, and set up our real-estate investments so that we each have Right of Survivorship, (who ever remains alive gets the goodies).

 

It cost us time and money to try insuring that we get what all other married couples get automatically - and it pisses me off. We shouldn't have to fight for what is rightfully ours; what is automatically given to everyone else.

 

And of course, we are also not able to have the same tax advantages as all other married couples - which costs us money as well. The system is broken and too few people are willing to admit that - and that pisses me off.

 

Black people got the right to vote. Then women got the right to vote. Blacks got specific protection under the law. Physically challenged people got specific protection under the law. I think it's time WE get the same rights that everyone else has been given.

[DragonMando]

Ideally I'd want both, but since benefits aren't happening (in all likelihood) then I'd take the love. Having an even non-state-recognized ceremony to show thatother half off would be nice though

[Stargazer]

You're quite correct. My partner and I have spent a good deal of money trying to insure that our wishes and plans are protected. We've signed over power of attorney, medical power, and set up our real-estate investments so that we each have Right of Survivorship, (who ever remains alive gets the goodies).

 

It cost us time and money to try insuring that we get what all other married couples get automatically - and it pisses me off. We shouldn't have to fight for what is rightfully ours; what is automatically given to everyone else.

 

And of course, we are also not able to have the same tax advantages as all other married couples - which costs us money as well. The system is broken and too few people are willing to admit that - and that pisses me off.

 

Black people got the right to vote. Then women got the right to vote. Blacks got specific protection under the law. Physically challenged people got specific protection under the law. I think it's time WE get the same rights that everyone else has been given.

 

It's a shame that it's like that but I think people need to be smart, like you and your partner have been, and spend the money to have your affairs in order. You shouldn't have to fight for what is rightfully yours. Unfortunately, things are still messed up and you have to protect yourselves.

 

As for ceremonies, no one can stop anyone from having that whether gay marriage is legal or not. It's a celebration!

[PrivateTim]

I'm going with both. I won't marry someone I don't love. I also would like the benefits. Since I'm in a country that's unlikely to have gay marriage in my lifetime, I'm more than willing to move elsewhere...

 

OMG you are such a drama queen sometimes Tim! Not only are you likely to have gay marriage in your lifetime, it is likely before your 35th birthday. You could have it tomorrow if you'd move to Iowa.

 

I do not get why people have to have a ceremony and all that stuff to say 'I'm committed to you'. I don't think getting "married" makes you any more committed to your significant other. I don't need a priest or government official to tell me I'm committed. Thats bullshit. If I'm committed, I will show it through my actions. Why do you need a whole little ceremony to show it? I don't get it. IF you wanna get married, fine, go for it. But if you are marrying just to try and show that you are committed, I think thats wrong. You should be able to show that you are regardless of a ring on a finger or not.

 

That sounds as if it came straight out the Summer of '67, the Summer of Love when the revolt against marriage as a dated construct began.

 

To me the question isn't so much do you want the benefits or is it for love, but rather what will your marriage look like? Is it going to be a traditional commitment of "forsaking all others" or are people going to redefine marriage to just being a legal contract about the division of assets and such.

 

I have a hard time imaging most of my gay men friends as faithful partners since most of them cheat like hell. Most of my lesbian friends on the other hand are as loyal as old dogs, they never cheat. My mom's cousin (my second cousin?) has been with her wife for 39 years and they never had any bumps.

[Graeme]

I think the poll is wrong. I didn't get married for love or benefits. As TetRefine said, you don't need to marry because you love someone.

 

What I got married for was to show my love and commitment, and do it in a public and legally binding way. We didn't have to get married to be together, and I have family members who haven't married but are in long term relationships, one of which has children from the relationship, and another who has children from a failed marriage.

 

I'll admit that part of the reason I got married was because of societal pressure. There was an expectation that I would get married, and when I found someone to love, there was an implicit pressure to marry them. There was no explicit pressure -- no one told me that I should get married -- but I wanted to do what was 'right' in my view and in the view of what I thought society wanted.

 

So neither love nor benefits were the reasons I married. I already had the love, and the benefits were not a factor in the decision.

[Stargazer]

I think the poll is wrong. I didn't get married for love or benefits. As TetRefine said, you don't need to marry because you love someone.

 

What I got married for was to show my love and commitment, and do it in a public and legally binding way. We didn't have to get married to be together, and I have family members who haven't married but are in long term relationships, one of which has children from the relationship, and another who has children from a failed marriage.

 

I'll admit that part of the reason I got married was because of societal pressure. There was an expectation that I would get married, and when I found someone to love, there was an implicit pressure to marry them. There was no explicit pressure -- no one told me that I should get married -- but I wanted to do what was 'right' in my view and in the view of what I thought society wanted.

 

So neither love nor benefits were the reasons I married. I already had the love, and the benefits were not a factor in the decision.

 

That was a very thoughtful reply, Graeme. It brings to my mind another aspect of marriage that most people seem to expect (at least in straight marriages) ... the idea that because you get married it must automatically mean you want to have children/'start' a family.

 

I'm sorry, but for me, my husband and myself ARE the family. We chose to marry because we love each other and wanted to show our love, not because we want to have children. Just thought I would add that.

[Raj]

well to me marriage is how u show ur life long commitment and love . Its a promise to forever love and cherish that one person u love. For equality's sake it would be good to hav all the rights straigt people enjoy .but it is not imortant. What is important is are u willing to commit yourself that one person for the rest of your life.

[Tommy_B]

I am kind of with Tet. Maybe I'll feel different in ten years and I'll want a ceremony and a piece of paper to says something to the community, but I don't think I need it to be committed to someone.

 

Benefits? Even if they don't bring back marriage for gays in CA, it isn't that different from a benefit standpoint to be in a civil union and all the major companies here give partner benefits so it really isn't a big deal.

[Graeme]

Benefits? Even if they don't bring back marriage for gays in CA, it isn't that different from a benefit standpoint to be in a civil union and all the major companies here give partner benefits so it really isn't a big deal.

When looking at state benefits, you're correct... for as long as you live in a state which recognises civil unions and grants equivalent benefits. However, you currently don't get federal benefits (I'm using the word 'benefits' in the generic, not legal sense, because I'm including the ability to submit joint tax returns as a 'benefit' of being married) because civil unions are not recognised federally (and neither are same-sex marriages, but 'marriage' itself has federal benefits, even if some marriages are not being recognised by the federal governemnt).

 

As for the major companies, though, I agree with you. I've worked for two major American companies and both offered same-sex partner benefits, and included mandatory anti-discrimination training that made it clear that sexual orientation was a protected category, as were as marital status, religion, ethnicity and nationality.