Gays in California now have the right to be miserable too.

[Geoff Grace]

For those who have been saying that gay couples who can't legally marry already have the rights of straight married couples, Michigan's Supreme Court disagrees.

 

Are there any lawyers posting in this thread? If so, I'd love to read your thoughts on the matter.

 

Thanks.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[rasputin1963]

WWJD, are you embracing "Me-ism"? I'm certainly not. I care about myself, my family, people in my community. Most of the people I've met here aren't apathetic toward others. How about you? Do you devalue others? I think the perception of "Me-ism" is different from the reality.

 

I am reminded of that great quatrain from FIDDLER ON THE ROOF:

 

 

I'm sure you will be happy,

But even if you're not:

There's more to life than happiness--

Don't ask me what.

[Tusks]

 

For those who have been saying that gay couples who can't legally marry already have the rights of straight married couples, Michigan's Supreme Court disagrees .

 

 

Geoff,

 

The answer is a patchwork quilt on a state by state basis. Here in CT they do, but in most states they don't. In CT, legal rights have been granted. Moral equivalence with heterosexual union continues to be a desired outcome for the GLBT community here.

 

I have a couple of friends in Texas for whom legal rights are a significant issue, as one of the partners has been unwell.

 

Jerry

[rasputin1963]

 

Geoff, The answer is a patchwork quilt on a state by state basis. Here in CT they do, but in most states they don't. In CT, legal rights have been granted. Moral equivalence with heterosexual union continues to be a desired outcome for the GLBT community here. I have a couple of friends in Texas for whom legal rights are a significant issue, as one of the partners has been unwell. Jerry

 

 

Texas and the Bible Belt will probably be the last holdouts on this issue. But even they eventually will fold as this subject becomes the football of the American Supreme Court.

[Lee Knight]

About the gay festivals...

 

I was visiting my sister in San Fransisco and she suggested we attend the Folsom Street Fair. Neither of us is gay but she assured me it would be a day to remember. It was. The Folsom is closed. Temp fencing is erected (pardon the expression) and you pay to enter. Once inside you are immediately in another world. Hard core gay sex acts take place on the sidewalk. Assless chaps are the preferred attire. It was a blast. Humor was everywhere. As was the will to shock. I don't shock easy and the attendees had a good time razzing the straight.

 

But this was a closed event. As it should be.

 

Oh, and on gay marriage? Absolutely.

[Gus Lozada]

Ok

Now rainbow-chasers can get married. Great deal. No problems with that, anyway.

 

 

... so... what about allowing gay couples to adopt a child?

 

 

/ run and hide mode ON

[Geoff Grace]

Even if I had problems with a gay couple raising children -- which I don't -- I'd have a bigger problem with children remaining in an orphanage.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[El Grinder]

Why not go ahead and replace the second and third "=" with a couple more "+"?

 

Yay polygamy!

 

Having children is no longer financially beneficial as it was in days when more kids meant more hands to work around the farm.

 

So society is moving away from the typical breeder "nuclear family" into family structures not based around reproduction. Hell, working adults with no kids fall into the same category.

[wwwjd]

I'm mostly just a spectator here, but... And how do they get this civil union/contract/whatever? They go get a marriage license. Then they get married by a Justice of the Peace. See, even the state refers to this legal status as marriage. Marriage has not been a solely religious word/concept for a long time. "Marriage" used to be defined as, essentially, ownership of a woman.

 

1. I dunno, I'm no lawyer. so the state should change the definition of a word rather than alter the laws? is that the lazy way the people we PAY to work the laws do their job? nice.

 

2. did it mention anything about ownership of a man?

 

Since we alter words so easily, I plan to start calling football "Tornado", and the color blue "truck". Is that sick ill fat garbage or what?

 

 

**EDIT: BTW I consider this an open discussion and am enjoying the mental exercise. It's all good, at the end of the day. I respect EVERYONE's opinions and only wish more would speak theirs openly.

[rasputin1963]

 

I think Mexico has always been more surprisingly tolerant of this issue than the USA, no? I mean, As far back as the 1960's, the Mexican public has been generally aware of the sexuality of the immensely popular ballad singer Juan Gabriel... and nobody has made a big deal of it at all.

 

 

 

...and there is no doubt that the best drag queens in the world are the latina drag queens who come out of San Antonio. Yes, more convincing and studied and elaborate in their live song impersonations than the queens in SF or NYC.

 

I think Mexico, in her heart, still celebrates the mystique of the berdache... The berdaches were members of various Native American tribes... They were men, but dressed as women. [You'll see one in the Dustin Hoffmann movie LITTLE BIG MAN, btw]. It was their job to remember all the songs and poems of the tribe, for reciting around the campfire. They were identified as berdaches by the tribal elders when they were only small children, and their life of tribal performing artist began then... It was thought that an especially beautiful soul had incarnated into them, and as a result they were cherished by the tribe, not reviled.

 

In the above photo of Juan Gabriel, I almost get the feeling that the ghost of Mexican uber-diva Lola Beltran has come to live in his body...

 

[Gus Lozada]

Whattt??? Juan Gabriel... gay?????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup. I guess we just do not care. YEAH, the "mexican macho" stigma has been around all the time but I guess it is yet flexible

[Billster]

"....and it all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all." - THX-1138

 

Okay, quoting Sci-Fi movies in this context is a thread-killer.

[Geoff Grace]

Here's an article on the swing vote of the controversial decision:

 

California Chief Justice Says Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Was One Of His Toughest

 

Like some posters here, the moderate Rebublican thought of anti-miscegenation laws of the past while pondering his decision.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[boosh]

90% of the straight couples sometimes whish they hadn't married at all.

[Tedster]

 

 

 

Aren't these those same folks whose pictures are always on the bathroom doors? They must be moonlighting on bumper stickers for some extra cash.

[Mudcat007]

 

Yay polygamy! Having children is no longer financially beneficial as it was in days when more kids meant more hands to work around the farm. So society is moving away from the typical breeder "nuclear family" into family structures not based around reproduction. Hell, working adults with no kids fall into the same category.

 

 

I was waiting for someone to comment on my earlier posting.

 

Anybody here have any problems with polygamous marriage?

[UstadKhanAli]

Anybody here have any problems with polygamous marriage?

 

Dang, ain't ONE wife enough?

[MrKnobs]

See, there's the rub. Once again: marriage as far as the law is concerned is a social contract, period. Religion has nothing to do with it - they are all "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. That's why you can get married in any church, or none at all. You fill out the papers, file them, & pay the fee - bingo, you're legally married. Incidentally, people who support civil unions but not "marriage" are splitting hairs over the use of the "M" word. It's the same thing - telling someone they can't use the "special word" is just dumb.

 

It's NOT dumb. You would have to remove religion and thousands of years of culture from the equation in order to remove the sanctity of marriage. And let me tell you, a large majority of Americans feel very strongly opposed to gays and lesbians being married.

 

The essence of the argument you're making is that marriage is legalized f*cking with financial strings attached. Perhaps for some people it is, but for the majority it's much more than that.

 

Just to complete my controversial viewpoint (which is only controversial in places like San Francisco, Austin, and here on a musicians' forum), I personally think that gays and lesbians not being satisfied with civil unions and insisting on the word "marriage" are being both short-sighted and selfish. Most reasonable people are already fine with them living together and getting equal rights under the law, yet they want more: they want the word "marriage."

 

Why? To put it in the face of religious and traditional people?

 

If this happens, it's not gonna happen for a very long time. Poll after poll has show that the country opposes gay and lesbian "marriage," but approves of "civil unions." If I were them, I'd take this and let things evolve slowly. Evolution, not revolution is generally how things change - if only by one generation passing away and another coming of age.

 

To close with a joke I heard a comedian tell:

 

"Why not let gays and lesbians get married? What bothers you about it? Isn't it the f*cking? Because if that's the case, you should be FOR letting them get married. Everyone knows f*cking stops after marriage."

 

Terry D.

[UstadKhanAli]

CBS poll on gay marriage, in case anyone is interested in a breakdown of who opposes gay marriage in the United States. It doesn't contradict Mr. Knob's assertion that the majority opposes it, although it's not quite as "overwhelming" an opposition as I would have thought.

 

My question to Mr. Knobs would be: if the majority of Americans supported gay marriage, would you approve of it? Or does your opposition to it go much farther than simply a majority rule?

 

As far as my viewpoints, I feel like I've already made them, so at this point, I'm not interested in arguing. I'm much more interested in hearing other people's viewpoints.

[Philter]

A majority of Americans opposed civil rights at one time too, and giving women the vote, and hell, seceding from Great Britain...

 

Majority opinion =/= right.

[Billster]

Since we alter words so easily, I plan to start calling football "Tornado", and the color blue "truck". Is that sick ill fat garbage or what?

 

Oddly, this discussion is about the evolution of the word "marriage". As Knobs points out, the gay advocates are using it as a code word to stick their lifestyle in the face of religious traditionalists. If they would stick to less loaded language, they could more easily achieve their goals regarding legal rights.

 

Saying "I'm Pro-Choice" sounds a lot nicer than saying "I'm Pro-Abortion".

[fetishfrog]

It's NOT dumb. You would have to remove religion and thousands of years of culture from the equation in order to remove the sanctity of marriage. And let me tell you, a large majority of Americans feel very strongly opposed to gays and lesbians being married. The essence of the argument you're making is that marriage is legalized f*cking with financial strings attached. Perhaps for some people it is, but for the majority it's much more than that. Just to complete my controversial viewpoint (which is only controversial in places like San Francisco, Austin, and here on a musicians' forum), I personally think that gays and lesbians not being satisfied with civil unions and insisting on the word "marriage" are being both short-sighted and selfish. Most reasonable people are already fine with them living together and getting equal rights under the law, yet they want more: they want the word "marriage." Why? To put it in the face of religious and traditional people? If this happens, it's not gonna happen for a very long time. Poll after poll has show that the country opposes gay and lesbian "marriage," but approves of "civil unions." If I were them, I'd take this and let things evolve slowly. Evolution, not revolution is generally how things change - if only by one generation passing away and another coming of age. To close with a joke I heard a comedian tell: "Why not let gays and lesbians get married? What bothers you about it? Isn't it the f*cking? Because if that's the case, you should be FOR letting them get married. Everyone knows f*cking stops after marriage." Terry D.

 

No, it is dumb.

 

Opponents of gay marriage are equally selfish for wanting the term marriage all to themselves...marriage implies (we hope) an expression of the love two people have for each other. Why do the opponents insist on keeping that for themselves, is it their lack of selfishness? Gays are not trying to 'put it in the face of religious and traditional people (do you really think you're that important, seriously, that's one of the most self-centered things I've heard on HC, and I hang in the Amp forum from time to time), they're just trying to be treated as equals. They want to be able to say, 'we're married'. Why are the opponents so insistent on preventing that?

[Lee Knight]

I see the gay marriage question just like the multiracial marriage question 60 years ago. Is there anyone who would dispute the right to multiracial marriage? And yet... 60 years ago...

 

So we get the argument, "God's Law." And there's the problem. Who's God? The Bible? The Koran? Bob and Ted's Ministries of Orange County? Who's God?

 

The Bible clearly states that if a child were to disrespect his parents, he should be stoned to death. Hmmm. OK... well we won't use that part of God's Law. But with gay's... I mean, they're homos. Right? Wrong.

 

I say equality. Just make the whole mess easy. Equal rights to everyone of age. Let's leave God Law out of it and weather or not we agree with a person's choices, providing they bring no harm to another, equal rights. Marriage included. Simple.

[fetishfrog]

 

I was waiting for someone to comment on my earlier posting. Anybody here have any problems with polygamous marriage?

 

 

To be perfectly honest, so long as all parties enter the contract of marriage of their own free will, why should anyone care about polygamy?

 

The only problems I have now are that all the practicioners seem to force the women into these agreements at a very young age, against their will, sometimes violently. If everyone involved was a consenting adult, I wouldn't bat an eye.

[MrKnobs]

CBS poll on gay marriage , in case anyone is interested in a breakdown of who opposes gay marriage in the United States. It doesn't contradict Mr. Knob's assertion that the majority opposes it, although it's not quite as "overwhelming" an opposition as I would have thought.

 

Here is the Gallup Poll on the subject. It appears (no surprise) that feelings vary depending where in the nation you live. Overall they have it at 56/40 against nationally, 61/35 Midwest, 69/30 South, with slight pro gay marriage majorities on the two coasts.

 

Their analysis of voter feelings on the issue seems to indicate it's going to be a good while before gay marriage can win at the ballot box - nationally at least.

 

My question to Mr. Knobs would be: if the majority of Americans supported gay marriage, would you approve of it? Or does your opposition to it go much farther than simply a majority rule?

 

My personal feeling, being a rather conservative and religious person, is that I'm uncomfortable with the term "marriage" being used. I have no problem with gays and lesbians being allowed domestic unions being allowed under the law. Living in Austin I have many gay and lesbian friends; my everyday experience is that they're just ordinary people who happen to be same-sex oriented.

 

Of course some are clearly sick, but in no greater proportion than heterosexual people so far as I can tell. In Austin we see all kinds of wackos of EVERY orientation being flagrant in public. And yes, there are more than TWO.

 

As I scientist, I find the evidence for genetic determination of sexual orientation becoming more compelling each year. Why anyone would seek to punish others for their genetic predilections is beyond me, and an exact equivalent to racism or sexism in my view. Love and sexuality between consenting adults is no one's business but their own.

 

However, as I said, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not only religious but cultural, and, I think, an underpinning of our society. Having said that, I think our national obsession with materialism, sexuality, narcissism, and violence are far greater threats to the country than the fact that we, like all other countries, have a sizeable population of gay and lesbian people.

 

Terry D.