You know... I have yet to hear a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be able to marry that didn't involve: 1) Religion or 2) "Tradition".

Marriage (as the article is referring to) is a state issue, and thus subject to separation of church and state. The fact that it shares it's name with a religious ceremony is irrelevant. You can have a religious figure say "Yes, you're married.", but unless the state agrees you might as well say you are a fairy princess and her prince. Like wise you can do what my wife and I did, get married by the state and ignore the whole church thing.

And not changing laws because of "Tradition" is stupid, sorry, can't come up with a more well reasoned argument than that.

B-b-b-but it's the GAY AGENDA! They're going to INFECT US with TEH GHEY!

I am so tired of stupid ;)

SpinStopper: B-b-b-but it's the GAY AGENDA! They're going to INFECT US with TEH GHEY!

I am so tired of stupid ;)

Yea - hopefully this passes and I become way more proud of my home state.

They don't give a damn about the name "marriage"; what they care about is preventing any social reward or acknowledgment for homosexual behavior.

I_Love_Verdi: They don't give a damn about the name "marriage"; what they care about is preventing any social reward or acknowledgment for homosexual behavior.

Like there are already too many "rewards" for homosexual behavior in our society already.

Like more people will get teh ghey if there are 2 for 1 coupons for homosexual couples at Denny's.

That didn't come out right. I didn't mean that you get two homosexual couples for the price of one ;)

Flumenos: You know... I have yet to hear a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be able to marry that didn't involve: 1) Religion or 2) "Tradition".

Marriage (as the article is referring to) is a state issue, and thus subject to separation of church and state. The fact that it shares it's name with a religious ceremony is irrelevant. You can have a religious figure say "Yes, you're married.", but unless the state agrees you might as well say you are a fairy princess and her prince. Like wise you can do what my wife and I did, get married by the state and ignore the whole church thing.

And not changing laws because of "Tradition" is stupid, sorry, can't come up with a more well reasoned argument than that.

What is marriage and why does the government care?

Fundamentalists give their full support...just kidding, they're terrified and gearing up for a fight.

It's sad when a group of people see the world passing them by, desiring to change its ways and they feel terrified at what the world may show them. I feel bad for them, in a sense. Old and rural populations have always feared change, and they are playing into cyclical behavior. I wonder how many older people who now espouse conservatism were zoot suiters, or beatniks, or greasers, or hippies. They may have been rebellious in their youth, to some extent. Now, they're terrified of modern culture.

Fundamentalists give their full support...just kidding, they're terrified and gearing up for a fight

If they weren't scared, they wouldn't be religious.

Flumenos: Marriage (as the article is referring to) is a state issue,

That is pretty much the entire problem. The state should be interested only in enforcing a set of contracts. As far as the state is concerned, Marriage should be a set of contracts including right of survivorship, medical proxy, etc. If you want to get religious-Married, go to a church, and the church is free to marry you or not, based on any criteria they choose.

This is an legal issue that homosexuals and polyamorous mormons both have interest in reforming for similar reasons. Imagine if they tried working together? Imagine the triangle of fun between Las Vegas, Reno, and Salt Lake City?

All marriages should be outlawed.

EatHam: That is pretty much the entire problem. The state should be interested only in enforcing a set of contracts. As far as the state is concerned, Marriage should be a set of contracts including right of survivorship, medical proxy, etc. If you want to get religious-Married, go to a church, and the church is free to marry you or not, based on any criteria they choose.

Which makes sense if you're talking about prop 8. But this isn't marriage per se, it's civil unions, with absolutely no infringement on religious perogatives -- and they still oppose it.

There are some people opposed to gay marriage who are genuinely concerned about its possible ramifications on religious liberty (an overblown threat, but if it were really likely to restrict religious freedom, it would be a serious matter), or to preserve the sanctity of their particular traditions. But the overwhelming majority just want to make life as difficult as possible for gays.

Flumenos: You know... I have yet to hear a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be able to marry that didn't involve: 1) Religion or 2) "Tradition".

3) The gov't forcing you, a business owner, to spend a large amount of money on partner's healthcare benefits. That's "benefits" not a right.

.. and for the record, i do not believe hetero-married partners should automatically qualify for benefits.

Flumenos: You know... I have yet to hear a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be able to marry that didn't involve: 1) Religion or 2) "Tradition".

Because the government has no business blessing any kind of relationship with special privileges.

Down with state recognized marriage!

Anyone else sick of the "just kidding" headlines?

Just kidding, they're really great

/?

I said it 1997 and I been saying it ever since, call it Parriage and there would be none of this brew-haha.

Tabatha Static: All marriages should be outlawed.

And all outlaws should be married.

/that'd learn 'em/

If you want to deny same-sex couples the same rights as other people, simply exempt them from taxation first.

Problem solved.

Gay marriage: the old ball and chain, but with extra balls.

According to the article this bill would only give gay couples the same benefits of married people, but not the title of "Marriage".

Guess what, Fundies are STILL pissed off. They could care less about the "sanctity" of marriage.

They just hate people.

Fark you fundies.

We'll have to wall off them there cities when the queer zombie apocalypse begins. They'll have to fend for themselves.

If you hate gay sex you should be in favor of gay marriage.

If gay couples are allowed to marry then every church will be forced to marry them, just like all churches are forced to marry any hetro couple that walks in there today.

/Your fear amuses me.

But but but... The whole issue is because gays want to "abrogate" the religious sacrament of marriage! Civil unions are fine, right? That's what all the lying shiatsacks upstanding conservatives keep telling me!

1. Step one form church based on the Jefferson Bible.
2. Perform marriges for gay congregation members.
3. Haul state into court under 1st and 14th amendments.

What could be more American?

rocinante721: 3) The gov't forcing you, a business owner, to spend a large amount of money on partner's healthcare benefits. That's "benefits" not a right.

I have an easy answer for you dumbass - just cover employees, not spouses.

/run a small business. and we're happy to cover spouses, regardless of sexual orientation

Just get rid of the state definition for marriage.

Allow any two people to enter into a contract, call is a civil union or whatever.

Allow religious folks to do their reglious wedding ceremonies as they deem fit.

Ta-dah

They can be miserable like the rest of us. You would think they would be fighting against this.

I don't know -- my marriage will be fundamentally altered by what some other guys do in their own home. Of course, I don't know them and will probably never meet them, but it will still destroy the sanctity of my marriage!

I support gay marriage if the chicks are hot.

Conservative ideology consists of standing on the tracks and waving your arms desperately and irrationally, trying to stop the Train of Progress.

And on every single issue, eventually they get run over.

Great. Let's just destroy the institution of marriage completely, as if anyone takes it seriously anymore anyway.

When can I marry a penguin?

Good change the rules again

what happens

Business charge more, or go under. Great......

FTFA:

The Legislature is deciding on the final piece in a series of measures that would extend marriage-like benefits to gays and lesbians registered under the state's Domestic Partnership law.

Currently 5,111 same-sex couples are in that registry.


Since my girlfriend and I aren't ready to get married, I wonder if we could get on that registry so she can be covered under my health plan.

"We just want not to use the same name as 'marriage'"

Ok we did that.

"Oh, well we don't want them to have the other benefits too"

rocinante721: 3) The gov't forcing you, a business owner, to spend a large amount of money on partner's healthcare benefits. That's "benefits" not a right.

Why should homosexuals be any less qualified to receive benefits in this case?

Conservatives: We want LESS government! We respect individual liberty! We are pro family!

/Of course at the same time, we want the government to control who can and cannot form a family and enter into contracts with each other.

fritton: According to the article this bill would only give gay couples the same benefits of married people, but not the title of "Marriage".

Guess what, Fundies are STILL pissed off. They could care less about the "sanctity" of marriage.

The call in "counterfeit marriage" or "marriage in all but name". Some fundies are finally seeing the light and are starting to except "civil unions" as a good compromise - others are still fighting it tooth and nail and will forever fight it. If you asked me a few years ago - I would of said civil unions was acceptable. But the ship as sailed on civil unions. They don't work. Now its full marriage rights or bust.

/gay
//this is a generational issue

Actually, I just thought of it: I realize why gay marriage is wrong.

After all, in a literal sense "gay" = "happy", and happiness has no place in marriage. ...so it's not so much a matter of gay marriage being immoral as it simply being an oxymoron.

This law stinks. It's the same as marriage, without the name, but it's still a marriage nonetheless. Anyone has the right to marry anyone they want - as long as the person is of legal age and is of the OPPOSITE SEX. Being homosexual is a choice. If you choose to be homosexual, you shouldn't expect to have the same rights and privileges as married people.

You want your fricken rights? Marry someone 18+ of the opposite sex! That isn't difficult, is it?

p.s. I've stated my opinion time and time again about this subject, but I continued to be called a "troll". I don't understand this, because I am stating the belief that I have which is shared by the majority of the people in this country.

Nightjars: Just get rid of the state definition for marriage.

Allow any two people to enter into a contract, call is a civil union or whatever.

Allow religious folks to do their reglious wedding ceremonies as they deem fit.

Ta-dah

That's what the article is about.. simply giving gay couples the standard BENEFITS, but NOT call it marriage

It isn't helping, the fundies are still pissed pretty much proving that those fundies are nothing but pathetic bigots.

No legal marriage for anybody, is what I say.

I used to be a Mormon, so I am really getting a kick out of these replies...

rocinante721: 3) The gov't forcing you, a business owner, to spend a large amount of money on partner's healthcare benefits. That's "benefits" not a right.

By the way, if the poor business owner is gonna go broke from providing health care benefits to 'partners', it ain't the gay people that's gonna break him, it's the straight folk, which, you may have noticed, exist in far greater numbers.

KentuckyBob: I said it 1997 and I been saying it ever since, call it Parriage and there would be none of this brew-haha.

And yet you didn't read the opening paragraph to the article, "a measure passed Tuesday night by the state Senate and likely to win approval in the House would give same-sex couples virtually every state-granted benefit that married couples now enjoy - everything but the name marriage itself."

People are not concerned about the "sanctity of marriage", in any form of argument, they are merely bigoted and do not want homosexuals to be seen as equivalent to heterosexuals. Yes, I will say this flatly and once more, those who disagree with homosexual marriage are bigoted and nothing more.

Atomic Spunk: but I continued to be called a "troll"fark off troll

On a serious note, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. They should issue civil contracts that spell out the legal responsibilities the people involved have towards each other. There is no ceremony. They just sign on the dotted line.

If a person wants a marriage they can go to their local religious organization who has the right to refuse for any reason. The marriage, however, has no legal standing.

rocinante721: Flumenos: You know... I have yet to hear a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be able to marry that didn't involve: 1) Religion or 2) "Tradition".

3) The gov't forcing you, a business owner, to spend a large amount of money on partner's healthcare benefits. That's "benefits" not a right.

.. and for the record, i do not believe hetero-married partners should automatically qualify for benefits.

The government doesn't force you to provide health benefits at all.

vernonFL: Conservatives: We want LESS government! We respect individual liberty! We are pro family!
/Of course at the same time, we want the government to control who can and cannot form a family and enter into contracts with each other.

Meh, both sides of the aisle cry "freedom!" when it's politically expedient & fits with their agenda and "more laws!" when it's not. They just choose different issues to get all legislative over.

/"assault weapon" ban, anyone?
//ohh, it's painted gray rather than black -- BAN IT!

Atomic Spunk: being homosexual is a choice

Troll!

Seriously, at what point in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? Do you have homosexual fantasies that you don't act on?