Can anyone tell me what rights come along with marriage that are specifically excluded in a civil union?
I’m curious as to whether or not this is just a huge battle over a word…
I can tell you that in California there was no difference. The homosexual activists then sued on the grounds that separate but equal is not equal and won, forcing the people of California to a vote to protect marriage.
It’s interesting that this particular story is about a woman sitting in a Catholoic Church and wants to marry her partner. Do you think she’ll be able to get married in the Catholic church even though it goes against their views? Let the lawsuits begin.
Apparently the gay advocates only have “Tolerance” for their own views.
Exactly. It’s like boys joining girlscouts or girls joining boyscouts, or men using women’s restrooms and vice versa. The government needs to separate and quit using the Christian term marriage and just bond or unionize everyone. That way Christians can get their legal bond union certificate from the state and then get married in church. Non-Christians can get their bond union certificate and be miserable like the rest of us. LOL Quit forcing the Christian term of marriage into a secular world down our throats. In regards to the Catholic Church that allows her to marry, if they do, they just lost total respect. It’s 100% against the Christian view. We all need to carry our cross, whatever that may be. We all have desires, but cannot always follow them.
So what is the definition of marriage through the state? Two people that love each other? What if a 10 year old girl loves a 40 year old guy? Come on now, they love each other, why discriminate? Why not a man and an animal? If they love each other and that is his desire? I know this is going a little far, but 50 years ago, so was gay marriage. Just something to think about.
I think I might be misunderstood slightly. I’m wondering if this is truly a religious battle then.
If it is, then I’m not sure it’s worth it. I’m going to assume for a minute that it’s a Judeo/Christian worldview being represented as being opposed to same-sex marriage being recognized by the government. In my experience, a Christian’s main vocation while they walk the planet is to point people to recognize the person/work of Jesus Christ. That’s it. Whether a person responds to that is completely of their own volition. What I see happening is Christians trying to clean people up before they can qualify for Grace, which is completely antithetical.
What does this have to do with a same-sex marriage law?
If the homosexual community was put off by Christianity before because of a judgemental attitude displayed by its followers, they will be even less likely to respond after legislative battles like this.
How many people are kept from discovering the restorative relationship that can be found with Jesus Christ because of laws like this?
Just because gays and lesbians want to believe they’re not “different” doesn’t mean society has to abandon it’s values and morals and accept them on equal par with real “marriages”. All you hear is “they want”. Well, you can’t always get what you want. Regardless of their wish to considered “normal”, they aren’t. They can’t conceive their own children. They buy one from a surrogate. It creates all sorts of “queer” problems. In a gay union, which on attends Mothers Day school functions and how is it explained to the children? In a lesbian union, who attends Fathers Day functions and how do they explain that one? History and religion defines “marriage” as the union of a MAN AND WOMAN for good and valid reasons.
Good to know that my fellow insurance colleagues are completely judgmental and bigoted. No wonder the DOIs have historically enacted such strong protections for consumers in order to guard against unfair discrimination…and I’m certainly not a huge fan of the DOIs.
Why don’t you do what your religions preach and love one another rather than spewing your judgmental and bigoted rants.
Besides, are these comments really appropriate for Insurance Journal? Think about your professionalism please. I’m sure many of the companies you work for have non-discrimination policies that you would be in violation of if you spoke these words aloud in your offices.
To both who wrote the above titled comments, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH. Churches are free to recognize what they want and the article was pretty clear that the woman quoted was being married in a different religion. This is to recognize the rights of the couple under state law, not religious beliefs. To the other part of the (ignorant) comments, history also said blacks were not fully recognized, inter-racial marriages were illegal, and Judeo-Christian relationships were frowned on. Funny how time can change things (and history marches on). If you really think gays and lesbians will threaten your marriage, then the problems in your own personal relationships go deeper than someone’s sexual orientation.
Does defending traditional marriage make you a bigot? If I were to share my sexual preferences with co-workers do you think that would be grounds for dismissal? How would an EPL policy respond to a homosexual employee advertising their sexuality to other employees or clients? What’s openly gay mean? Grow up? Maybe you Lacy.
since this article must mean to be insurance related, is this covered here because in Maine you can now buy insurance to cover a gay marriage, whereas a gay civil union was not insurable??? Does this mean Geico’s lizard is now free to get married, (and change the name to Gayco) or is this new law specifically limited to humankind?
Although they may not want to do away with the fees they collect, we should encourage state and federal politicians to abolish all marriage licenses. It seems like the only ones who want to get married anymore are the homosexuals. People should get married according to their own religious rules and beliefs and then present their marriage certificates to the state to register for whatever legal benefits a union of two people provides for. As a Christian I believe that salvation lies with your own personal relationship with God and all the rest is just a sideshow.
Scott, is it really necessary or appropriate to share your judgmental viewpoints while at work and with other professionals in an industry forum? Maybe think about that for a minute.
How a policy responds has absolutely nothing to do with this. Policies are crafted for business purposes…to make money. This is a public policy issue.
Being openly gay is fine in the workplace. Sexual harrassment is not (towards gays or straights). Don’t get the two issues confused.
Why is this even a topic. To each their own. We need to quit judging people for who they are. If they are gay/lesbian and want to marry good for them. As long as they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. This should have nothing to do with religion. There are many different religions that believe many different things. Let it be. If you do not agree great. but no need to be nasty and try to prevent others from being happy and in love. I do not believe in a lot of religions as I feel that they can be hypocritical at times, but I would never judge a person for their beliefs. The churches will decide if they will agree to these marriages or not, But let them have the option of being married in the eyes of all gods (whatever you believe) and the law.
For all of you wondering why this is such an issue, please pick up the most recent copy of Best’s Review and read the segment titled, “Higher Hurdles.” That may explain to many of you why this is important to “non-traditional” relationships.
1. Some states that have banned gay marriage have also included civil unions to that clause.
2. Survivor benefits. Civil Unions do not qualify.
3. Civil Unions are NOT recognized in all 50 states anyway.
4. In the case of an estate, the SPOUSE is afforded absolute rights. Civil Union or domestic partners cannot get that, even with a will.
5. Marriage laws are universal. In the case of an accident on an out-of-state vacation, Civil Union and domestic partner do NOT get visitation in ICU or any say over care of a partner. ONLY the spouse.
There are more, but you should get the point by now.
I’m not gay. But I do have gay friends who SHOULD be entitled to these benefits.
It’s not about cramming their lifestyle down our throats. It’s about being treated equally. It’s about what’s constitutional.
And it’s about the fact that our economy is in the toilet and too many morons want to spend millions on a freakin’ word, if you want my honest opinion. It’s a WORD. It doesn’t need defending, it doesn’t need protecting. It needs a listing in websters dictionary and tax forms. That’s all it is.
Exactly what judgmental viewpoints are you referring to? How an EPL policy responds has to do with insurance and it’s why this story has relevance here (besides the obvious heath insurance issues). I never mentioned sexual harassment; you are the one that seems confused.
there was an article posted monday here by IJ that discribed some of the problems/challenges faced by those who are in a civil union vs a civil marriage
Thanks for the information. It’s interesting but I’m not sure what the point is as I live in the United States. I may be wrong but I don’t think there is any precedent for homo-sexual unions in US history.
I am opposed to a homosexual union using the word marriage. I am however in favor of granting all the rights married couples enjoy to a gay union. Is that bigotted? isn’t this a middle ground that both sides can accept?
You want to be careful Scott. Anyone who expresses an opinion critical of a Liberal is committing a hate crime. You know what happens to insurance people and beauty queens who disagree with the prevailing politically correct edicts. Free speech is for Liberals only.
Amazing. A couple of sentences from a moderate view silences a heated exchange. Is everyone so polarized and small minded that there is no longer a middle ground? Is compromise no longer an option?
Actually, read the dictionary definition of bigot. Scott actually is as much a bigot as those he accuses of bigotry. If you don’t want to read opposing opinions, don’t post yours.
There was a compromise, middle ground. It was called domestic partnership. It was a one way compromise. They got what they wanted and then demanded more.
There is now a lobbying effort demanding that the next Supreme Court justice be gay. This will continue until we just admit this is silly.
didn’t read far enough Scott. Quoting from that same article
“Centuries after the Greeks and early Christians sanctified same-sex unions, Native Americans still practice a widespread same-sex tradition known as the berdache, in which two spirit males — men who are not tied to one gender — marry, provided they undergo a social and spiritual transformation, Lancaster said. One spouse might identify as female, but both remain biologically male.”
Today’s anti-gay marriage laws are the result of religious beliefs from centuries ago being forced on the people of this country. Politicians know about 70% of the population is Christian and are afraid to enforce separation of church and state.
You can have your religious beliefs but they in no way should affect our laws, regardless of the number of people who think they should. Separation of church and state is part of our Constitution and until it isn’t should be adhered to, no matter what your personal or religious beliefs.
If two people want to enter into a legal union they should have the same rights as anyone other couple who does so. Right now there are about 1,100 rights opposite sex couples enjoy that same sex couples don’t. That’s discriminatory.
It wasn’t that long ago our laws prohibited inter-racial marriage. And there was a time Blacks couldn’t vote and neither could women. Go back further to a time when independent women were dragged from their house, labeled a witch and burned at the stake. We used to think all that was perfectly okay. Thankfully, we came to our senses.
Our phobias allowed us to justify the horrible way we used to treat other human beings and they still do, just not to the degree they used to. According to the dictionary, a phobia is an irrational fear and that’s just what this anti-gay marriage movement is, a phobia.
Education cures phobias. We don’t need to ban gay marriage, we just need to become more educated.
You know, that’s great, thanks for pointing that out to me. I guess since it was done in the past that proves its ok now, right? Bring on the polygamists!
To all who believe that religion and laws are separate and distinct from eachother – wrong. Laws are based on a moral/religious code of conduct, the “Judeo-Christian ethic” in this country, although we may find other moral or religious beliefs codified in our laws. Thou shalt not steal (theft, burglary, robbery: against the law); Thou shalt not kill (murder: against the law); Thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury: against the law) The U.S. Constitution does NOT contain a “separation of Church and state” clause, as many seem to falsely believe – this phrase was coined at a much later time. What it DOES say in the 1st Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The constitutional intention is actually quite clear: we are not to be a theocracy; we are not to have any official religion(s) as a requirement of citizenship. NOR is the free exercise of religion to be denied.
Many who think they’re quoting the U.S.
Constitution are actually quoting something or someone else. The best source of information on the U.S. Constitution is still……the U.S. Constitution.
It is not about religon and ignorance, it is about a word. i will restate my position, give the homosexual union all of the rights that a heterosexual union has, just leave the word marriage alone.
I have read these comments, and I think this would have been avoided if only we had talked to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Gary Indiana sooner. I propose we talk to gay, married people who we consider our enemies and search for common ground. There may be some tough exchanges, but I am confident we can find common ground. And when we find that common ground, we should go to the U.N., and have them prepare a sharply worded letter, directed to those who don’t want to talk to our enemies, and tell them what we think, that we have found common ground, and that it is possible to grant universal healtcare to American and providing tax relief to 95% of Americans because we have found common ground with the 5% who will pay more in taxes. Remember, I didn’t cause this homophobic mess, I inherited it. And if you want to follow the progress of my talkes with our enemies, go to http://WWW.Weregonnagettothebottomofthis.gov, and you can track my progress with all those people the last people wouldn’t talk to.
Congrats to you on the East Coast and those fighters in Iowa. Your day of equality under the law will finally come. As for Debra Plowman, it sounds like she needs to get plowed – a few times. Yuck, what an uptight beeoch.
I only got to evelyns post before throwing up. it appears most of you are uneducated bigots and that is sad. Gay and lesbian people are normal people just like the people in KKK are normal, might not agree with them but they are normal and shouldhave every right that is guaranteed under the law. Civil Unions are as difference from Marriages as night and day. You backwater religious hicks need some serious education, do you still belong to the flat earth club? Sorry for the name calling but you people… i can’t believe you exist. And just to use evelyn again, if two opposite sex people want to get married and can’t or don’t wnat to have children, should we deny them the right to get married because they can’t / won’t procreate? Just using your logic here. AS for the mother’s /father’s day B.S., that is for each family to decide and it truly is none of your business.
The most bigotted message has come from Mary B, who claims she is not the bigot but is telling us exactly who is a bigot…thank you so much Mary B…I love it when folks expose who they really are…appears Mary has issues with those who believe in God…(very clever linking flatearthers…and KKK… in with religious belief). As Mary correctly points out, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even those of us from the flatearther society. Thank you for recognizing our rights, Mary…you Rock!!!!
It frustrates me to no end when someone uses religion as their sole argument to strip someone of the same basic rights they themselves enjoy as a human being.
There is a fine line between being entitled to your own opinion and passing judgment on others because their beliefs differ from your own. You don’t have to like gay marriage being legal; but you shouldn’t stand in other people’s way because of it.
What about opposing it good reason? I believe gay marriage will increase everyone’s cost of health insurance. I also believe there is no interest for any Government to recognize a homo-sexual relationship. Governments don’t recognize friendships do they?
Can anyone tell me what rights come along with marriage that are specifically excluded in a civil union?
I’m curious as to whether or not this is just a huge battle over a word…
I can tell you that in California there was no difference. The homosexual activists then sued on the grounds that separate but equal is not equal and won, forcing the people of California to a vote to protect marriage.
It’s interesting that this particular story is about a woman sitting in a Catholoic Church and wants to marry her partner. Do you think she’ll be able to get married in the Catholic church even though it goes against their views? Let the lawsuits begin.
Apparently the gay advocates only have “Tolerance” for their own views.
DK, you are right. It is about forcing same sex “marriage down everyones throat and trying to make it accepted by scociety.
Exactly. It’s like boys joining girlscouts or girls joining boyscouts, or men using women’s restrooms and vice versa. The government needs to separate and quit using the Christian term marriage and just bond or unionize everyone. That way Christians can get their legal bond union certificate from the state and then get married in church. Non-Christians can get their bond union certificate and be miserable like the rest of us. LOL Quit forcing the Christian term of marriage into a secular world down our throats. In regards to the Catholic Church that allows her to marry, if they do, they just lost total respect. It’s 100% against the Christian view. We all need to carry our cross, whatever that may be. We all have desires, but cannot always follow them.
So what is the definition of marriage through the state? Two people that love each other? What if a 10 year old girl loves a 40 year old guy? Come on now, they love each other, why discriminate? Why not a man and an animal? If they love each other and that is his desire? I know this is going a little far, but 50 years ago, so was gay marriage. Just something to think about.
I think I might be misunderstood slightly. I’m wondering if this is truly a religious battle then.
If it is, then I’m not sure it’s worth it. I’m going to assume for a minute that it’s a Judeo/Christian worldview being represented as being opposed to same-sex marriage being recognized by the government. In my experience, a Christian’s main vocation while they walk the planet is to point people to recognize the person/work of Jesus Christ. That’s it. Whether a person responds to that is completely of their own volition. What I see happening is Christians trying to clean people up before they can qualify for Grace, which is completely antithetical.
What does this have to do with a same-sex marriage law?
If the homosexual community was put off by Christianity before because of a judgemental attitude displayed by its followers, they will be even less likely to respond after legislative battles like this.
How many people are kept from discovering the restorative relationship that can be found with Jesus Christ because of laws like this?
I guess I just tipped my hand a bit…
Just because gays and lesbians want to believe they’re not “different” doesn’t mean society has to abandon it’s values and morals and accept them on equal par with real “marriages”. All you hear is “they want”. Well, you can’t always get what you want. Regardless of their wish to considered “normal”, they aren’t. They can’t conceive their own children. They buy one from a surrogate. It creates all sorts of “queer” problems. In a gay union, which on attends Mothers Day school functions and how is it explained to the children? In a lesbian union, who attends Fathers Day functions and how do they explain that one? History and religion defines “marriage” as the union of a MAN AND WOMAN for good and valid reasons.
Good to know that my fellow insurance colleagues are completely judgmental and bigoted. No wonder the DOIs have historically enacted such strong protections for consumers in order to guard against unfair discrimination…and I’m certainly not a huge fan of the DOIs.
Why don’t you do what your religions preach and love one another rather than spewing your judgmental and bigoted rants.
Besides, are these comments really appropriate for Insurance Journal? Think about your professionalism please. I’m sure many of the companies you work for have non-discrimination policies that you would be in violation of if you spoke these words aloud in your offices.
What a shame.
To both who wrote the above titled comments, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH. Churches are free to recognize what they want and the article was pretty clear that the woman quoted was being married in a different religion. This is to recognize the rights of the couple under state law, not religious beliefs. To the other part of the (ignorant) comments, history also said blacks were not fully recognized, inter-racial marriages were illegal, and Judeo-Christian relationships were frowned on. Funny how time can change things (and history marches on). If you really think gays and lesbians will threaten your marriage, then the problems in your own personal relationships go deeper than someone’s sexual orientation.
Way to go, Grow Up! Nice point.
Does defending traditional marriage make you a bigot? If I were to share my sexual preferences with co-workers do you think that would be grounds for dismissal? How would an EPL policy respond to a homosexual employee advertising their sexuality to other employees or clients? What’s openly gay mean? Grow up? Maybe you Lacy.
since this article must mean to be insurance related, is this covered here because in Maine you can now buy insurance to cover a gay marriage, whereas a gay civil union was not insurable??? Does this mean Geico’s lizard is now free to get married, (and change the name to Gayco) or is this new law specifically limited to humankind?
Although they may not want to do away with the fees they collect, we should encourage state and federal politicians to abolish all marriage licenses. It seems like the only ones who want to get married anymore are the homosexuals. People should get married according to their own religious rules and beliefs and then present their marriage certificates to the state to register for whatever legal benefits a union of two people provides for. As a Christian I believe that salvation lies with your own personal relationship with God and all the rest is just a sideshow.
Scott, is it really necessary or appropriate to share your judgmental viewpoints while at work and with other professionals in an industry forum? Maybe think about that for a minute.
How a policy responds has absolutely nothing to do with this. Policies are crafted for business purposes…to make money. This is a public policy issue.
Being openly gay is fine in the workplace. Sexual harrassment is not (towards gays or straights). Don’t get the two issues confused.
And yes, you’re a bigot.
Why is this even a topic. To each their own. We need to quit judging people for who they are. If they are gay/lesbian and want to marry good for them. As long as they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. This should have nothing to do with religion. There are many different religions that believe many different things. Let it be. If you do not agree great. but no need to be nasty and try to prevent others from being happy and in love. I do not believe in a lot of religions as I feel that they can be hypocritical at times, but I would never judge a person for their beliefs. The churches will decide if they will agree to these marriages or not, But let them have the option of being married in the eyes of all gods (whatever you believe) and the law.
For all of you wondering why this is such an issue, please pick up the most recent copy of Best’s Review and read the segment titled, “Higher Hurdles.” That may explain to many of you why this is important to “non-traditional” relationships.
1. Some states that have banned gay marriage have also included civil unions to that clause.
2. Survivor benefits. Civil Unions do not qualify.
3. Civil Unions are NOT recognized in all 50 states anyway.
4. In the case of an estate, the SPOUSE is afforded absolute rights. Civil Union or domestic partners cannot get that, even with a will.
5. Marriage laws are universal. In the case of an accident on an out-of-state vacation, Civil Union and domestic partner do NOT get visitation in ICU or any say over care of a partner. ONLY the spouse.
There are more, but you should get the point by now.
I’m not gay. But I do have gay friends who SHOULD be entitled to these benefits.
It’s not about cramming their lifestyle down our throats. It’s about being treated equally. It’s about what’s constitutional.
And it’s about the fact that our economy is in the toilet and too many morons want to spend millions on a freakin’ word, if you want my honest opinion. It’s a WORD. It doesn’t need defending, it doesn’t need protecting. It needs a listing in websters dictionary and tax forms. That’s all it is.
Exactly what judgmental viewpoints are you referring to? How an EPL policy responds has to do with insurance and it’s why this story has relevance here (besides the obvious heath insurance issues). I never mentioned sexual harassment; you are the one that seems confused.
To Scott.. the so-called the “traditional” marriage is a fairly recent development in the rise of civilization. Read the following article
http://washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm
there was an article posted monday here by IJ that discribed some of the problems/challenges faced by those who are in a civil union vs a civil marriage
Thanks for the information. It’s interesting but I’m not sure what the point is as I live in the United States. I may be wrong but I don’t think there is any precedent for homo-sexual unions in US history.
Love that purple coat!
I am opposed to a homosexual union using the word marriage. I am however in favor of granting all the rights married couples enjoy to a gay union. Is that bigotted? isn’t this a middle ground that both sides can accept?
You want to be careful Scott. Anyone who expresses an opinion critical of a Liberal is committing a hate crime. You know what happens to insurance people and beauty queens who disagree with the prevailing politically correct edicts. Free speech is for Liberals only.
Well said Nobody Important and Scott you are not a bigot just because you have a legitimate opposing opinion.
Amazing. A couple of sentences from a moderate view silences a heated exchange. Is everyone so polarized and small minded that there is no longer a middle ground? Is compromise no longer an option?
Actually, read the dictionary definition of bigot. Scott actually is as much a bigot as those he accuses of bigotry. If you don’t want to read opposing opinions, don’t post yours.
There was a compromise, middle ground. It was called domestic partnership. It was a one way compromise. They got what they wanted and then demanded more.
There is now a lobbying effort demanding that the next Supreme Court justice be gay. This will continue until we just admit this is silly.
Well said Baxtor.
If you know some Lesbians or Homos getting married in Maine a good gift item would be Maine Maple Syrup gift set.
I’m all for giving them Gay marriage, just not Gay Divorce. There has to be a line somewhere!
Life isn’t always the panacea peiople make it out to be.
didn’t read far enough Scott. Quoting from that same article
“Centuries after the Greeks and early Christians sanctified same-sex unions, Native Americans still practice a widespread same-sex tradition known as the berdache, in which two spirit males — men who are not tied to one gender — marry, provided they undergo a social and spiritual transformation, Lancaster said. One spouse might identify as female, but both remain biologically male.”
Today’s anti-gay marriage laws are the result of religious beliefs from centuries ago being forced on the people of this country. Politicians know about 70% of the population is Christian and are afraid to enforce separation of church and state.
You can have your religious beliefs but they in no way should affect our laws, regardless of the number of people who think they should. Separation of church and state is part of our Constitution and until it isn’t should be adhered to, no matter what your personal or religious beliefs.
If two people want to enter into a legal union they should have the same rights as anyone other couple who does so. Right now there are about 1,100 rights opposite sex couples enjoy that same sex couples don’t. That’s discriminatory.
It wasn’t that long ago our laws prohibited inter-racial marriage. And there was a time Blacks couldn’t vote and neither could women. Go back further to a time when independent women were dragged from their house, labeled a witch and burned at the stake. We used to think all that was perfectly okay. Thankfully, we came to our senses.
Our phobias allowed us to justify the horrible way we used to treat other human beings and they still do, just not to the degree they used to. According to the dictionary, a phobia is an irrational fear and that’s just what this anti-gay marriage movement is, a phobia.
Education cures phobias. We don’t need to ban gay marriage, we just need to become more educated.
You know, that’s great, thanks for pointing that out to me. I guess since it was done in the past that proves its ok now, right? Bring on the polygamists!
Wish the whole bible thumping crowd could be as intelligent.
To all who believe that religion and laws are separate and distinct from eachother – wrong. Laws are based on a moral/religious code of conduct, the “Judeo-Christian ethic” in this country, although we may find other moral or religious beliefs codified in our laws. Thou shalt not steal (theft, burglary, robbery: against the law); Thou shalt not kill (murder: against the law); Thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury: against the law) The U.S. Constitution does NOT contain a “separation of Church and state” clause, as many seem to falsely believe – this phrase was coined at a much later time. What it DOES say in the 1st Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The constitutional intention is actually quite clear: we are not to be a theocracy; we are not to have any official religion(s) as a requirement of citizenship. NOR is the free exercise of religion to be denied.
Many who think they’re quoting the U.S.
Constitution are actually quoting something or someone else. The best source of information on the U.S. Constitution is still……the U.S. Constitution.
It is not about religon and ignorance, it is about a word. i will restate my position, give the homosexual union all of the rights that a heterosexual union has, just leave the word marriage alone.
I have read these comments, and I think this would have been avoided if only we had talked to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Gary Indiana sooner. I propose we talk to gay, married people who we consider our enemies and search for common ground. There may be some tough exchanges, but I am confident we can find common ground. And when we find that common ground, we should go to the U.N., and have them prepare a sharply worded letter, directed to those who don’t want to talk to our enemies, and tell them what we think, that we have found common ground, and that it is possible to grant universal healtcare to American and providing tax relief to 95% of Americans because we have found common ground with the 5% who will pay more in taxes. Remember, I didn’t cause this homophobic mess, I inherited it. And if you want to follow the progress of my talkes with our enemies, go to http://WWW.Weregonnagettothebottomofthis.gov, and you can track my progress with all those people the last people wouldn’t talk to.
Congrats to you on the East Coast and those fighters in Iowa. Your day of equality under the law will finally come. As for Debra Plowman, it sounds like she needs to get plowed – a few times. Yuck, what an uptight beeoch.
I only got to evelyns post before throwing up. it appears most of you are uneducated bigots and that is sad. Gay and lesbian people are normal people just like the people in KKK are normal, might not agree with them but they are normal and shouldhave every right that is guaranteed under the law. Civil Unions are as difference from Marriages as night and day. You backwater religious hicks need some serious education, do you still belong to the flat earth club? Sorry for the name calling but you people… i can’t believe you exist. And just to use evelyn again, if two opposite sex people want to get married and can’t or don’t wnat to have children, should we deny them the right to get married because they can’t / won’t procreate? Just using your logic here. AS for the mother’s /father’s day B.S., that is for each family to decide and it truly is none of your business.
The most bigotted message has come from Mary B, who claims she is not the bigot but is telling us exactly who is a bigot…thank you so much Mary B…I love it when folks expose who they really are…appears Mary has issues with those who believe in God…(very clever linking flatearthers…and KKK… in with religious belief). As Mary correctly points out, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even those of us from the flatearther society. Thank you for recognizing our rights, Mary…you Rock!!!!
It frustrates me to no end when someone uses religion as their sole argument to strip someone of the same basic rights they themselves enjoy as a human being.
There is a fine line between being entitled to your own opinion and passing judgment on others because their beliefs differ from your own. You don’t have to like gay marriage being legal; but you shouldn’t stand in other people’s way because of it.
What about opposing it good reason? I believe gay marriage will increase everyone’s cost of health insurance. I also believe there is no interest for any Government to recognize a homo-sexual relationship. Governments don’t recognize friendships do they?