Hollywood joins the furor over gay marriage ban - quoted from yahoo news

[freshface]

I just don't get it. Gays are fighting for the right to marry? For the right to be in the military? These are the things I work had to avoid. They are throwing away the best things about being gay in the first place!......Carney

It's about choice. You chose not to marry or join the military. They can't make that choice. Since we don't have a draft, no one would force them to either marry or join the military should they have that right. Of course, gays are in the military now. They just have to stay deep in the closet if they want to serve.

 

[AllardChardon]

I think the right to act as a spouse in times of trouble or illness is probably the most important of these issues. I can't imagine loving someone for years only to have them become too ill to care for themselves or speak. And when the family arrives, they throw out the lover because the family has never "approved" of the relationship. The one closest to the patient has the least rights? No way. A spouse would not be treated like that.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The Governator has come out stating that he hopes Prop 8 is overturned.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I think the right to act as a spouse in times of trouble or illness is probably the most important of these issues. I can't imagine loving someone for years only to have them become too ill to care for themselves or speak. And when the family arrives, they throw out the lover because the family has never "approved" of the relationship. The one closest to the patient has the least rights? No way. A spouse would not be treated like that.

You are right that is a very big part of it, but it is not all of it. The financial/economic/decision part is secondary to being ALLOWED to acknowledge the multitude of small things that a marriage contains.

I've seen Stella try to explain in these posts the "intangable" part of queer marriage and get frustrated by the inability of words to express it sufficiently. I am probably doomed to the same failure, but let me try.

For ME, and I speak only for myself, marriage is almost sacred. I can't really express the discomfort that is felt by the thousands of little exclusions and slights that married gays and lesbians feel by not being allowed to "be equal". There is anger as well. It angers me that while we want EVERYONE to have something as wonderful as a committed marriage, the people who oppose gay marriage exclude us.

A domestic partnership or union is just not the same. Amy and I have had a domestic partnership for eight years and, while wonderful, it could never hold a candle to what we felt as a truly married couple. The differences between a marriage and a domestic partnership (even with the exact same rights as a marriage) may be too small for me to explain, but as a whole, they have tremendous meaning.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

For ME, and I speak only for myself, marriage is almost sacred.

And that feeling, ironically, is what opponents are attempting to use to argue against gay marriage?

That's the part that truly leaves me aghast.

As if sacredness is exclusive to religion? As if only white men and women could possibly understand or have anything together so sacred as a marriage? (we all know, it wasn't so long ago that interracial marriage was illegal...)

Sacredness is, by its very nature, inclusive, not exclusive. It is pure reverence, "a feeling of deep respect tinged with awe."

It's bowing your head to something greater than yourself (in this case, a union of two greater than the one). It mirrors the union of human and divine, and there is no exclusivity in that relationship ever stated. Anyone can worship there.

Perhaps, if instead of "civil union" - we made them, again, sacred unions, in the true sense of the word, reverent, full of respect (not necessarily religious/religion, btw)... then whatever we call "marriage" - that coupling itself - might be lifted to a different place in our culture and our hearts, gay or straight.

 

[Safe_Bet]

And that feeling, ironically, is what opponents are attempting to use to argue against gay marriage?

That's the part that truly leaves me aghast.

As if sacredness is exclusive to religion? As if only white men and women could possibly understand or have anything together so sacred as a marriage? (we all know, it wasn't so long ago that interracial marriage was illegal...)

Sacredness is, by its very nature, inclusive, not exclusive. It is pure reverence, "a feeling of deep respect tinged with awe."

It's bowing your head to something greater than yourself (in this case, a union of two greater than the one). It mirrors the union of human and divine, and there is no exclusivity in that relationship ever stated. Anyone can worship there.

Perhaps, if instead of "civil union" - we made them, again, sacred unions, in the true sense of the word, reverent, full of respect (not necessarily religious/religion, btw)... then whatever we call "marriage" - that coupling itself - might be lifted to a different place in our culture and our hearts, gay or straight.

~ Hugs ~

Perfect. (I emailed a copy of this to Amy and we both cried. )

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hollywood is a revolving door for fashion and semi-famous faces who are gone and forgotten in 5 years.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Governator has come out stating that he hopes Prop 8 is overturned.

He could have said so before the day. Loudly. Often. And he could have stayed out of Ohio and refrained from giving McCain those piggyback rides.

 

[Weird Harold]

You are right that is a very big part of it, but it is not all of it. The financial/economic/decision part is secondary to being ALLOWED to acknowledge the multitude of small things that a marriage contains.

I've seen Stella try to explain in these posts the "intangable" part of queer marriage and get frustrated by the inability of words to express it sufficiently. I am probably doomed to the same failure, but let me try.

...

Unfortunately, the "intangible" part of marriage (for anyone) has no legal standing or associated precedents so it's very difficult to use them as an argument for same-sex marriage.

I don't doubt that they exist, but I can't make a logical argument for or against same-sex marriages being unequal because you're not allowed to feel what millions of married hetero-couples don't feel about the intangibles.

The case is best argued without the emotional factors because it is impossible to legislate emotions; the case has to hinge on the clear injustices of things like letting the family who disowned you for most of your life having the right to make final care decisions instead of your life-mate.

 

[AllardChardon]

But any marriage is emotional by nature, unless for financial gain like fixed marriages for alliances.

Sacred union is a great term. It combines the best of both worlds.

I have never really experienced a "sacred union" even though I was legally married in the Catholic Church. So what does that tell you?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Unfortunately, the "intangible" part of marriage (for anyone) has no legal standing or associated precedents so it's very difficult to use them as an argument for same-sex marriage.

I don't doubt that they exist, but I can't make a logical argument for or against same-sex marriages being unequal because you're not allowed to feel what millions of married hetero-couples don't feel about the intangibles.

The case is best argued without the emotional factors because it is impossible to legislate emotions; the case has to hinge on the clear injustices of things like letting the family who disowned you for most of your life having the right to make final care decisions instead of your life-mate.

Oh sure, go take all the romance out of everything!

Yes, yes, yes... that's the argument that needs to be made to the courts, in the law, legally, yes.

But that sense of injustice brings up emotions in people... it's what truly moves them. The entire opposition to gay marriage is EMOTIONAL.

Ironic, huh?

 

[xssve]

Oh sure, go take all the romance out of everything!

Yes, yes, yes... that's the argument that needs to be made to the courts, in the law, legally, yes.

But that sense of injustice brings up emotions in people... it's what truly moves them. The entire opposition to gay marriage is EMOTIONAL.

Ironic, huh?

Emotions are tangible, though not typically actionable - and this entire issue is about intangibles on one side, politics on the other - proposition 8 is about the denial of social validation, albeit driven by essentially political reasons.

 

[Weird Harold]

But that sense of injustice brings up emotions in people... it's what truly moves them. The entire opposition to gay marriage is EMOTIONAL.

Not the entire opposition: the insurance industry quietly opposes same-sex marriages because "marriage" makes some automatic changes in coverages that removes the need for separate life and health insurance policies.

That's a purely economic opposition.

You are correct that the majority of the opposition rely on emotional arguments, which is why supporters have to emphasize the hard factual inequities to counter that tactic.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You lost, get over it. Next election 3-4 more states will ban same-sex marriage, too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Unfortunately, the "intangible" part of marriage (for anyone) has no legal standing or associated precedents so it's very difficult to use them as an argument for same-sex marriage.

I don't doubt that they exist, but I can't make a logical argument for or against same-sex marriages being unequal because you're not allowed to feel what millions of married hetero-couples don't feel about the intangibles.

The case is best argued without the emotional factors because it is impossible to legislate emotions; the case has to hinge on the clear injustices of things like letting the family who disowned you for most of your life having the right to make final care decisions instead of your life-mate.

We have lawyers for that..

 

[Shwenn]

I just don't get it. Gays are fighting for the right to marry? For the right to be in the military? These are the things I work had to avoid. They are throwing away the best things about being gay in the first place!......Carney

Reminds me of a Bill Hicks quote.

"Gays in the military . . . here's how I feel about it, alright? Anyone . . . DUMB enough . . . to want to be in the military, should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement."

 

[Weird Harold]

We have lawyers for that..

True, but public opinion will have a lot to do with the final outcome, and IMHO the side that presents the appearance of calm, rational reasoning over hysterical fear-mongering will win in the end.

 

[Stella_Omega]

True, but public opinion will have a lot to do with the final outcome, and IMHO the side that presents the appearance of calm, rational reasoning over hysterical fear-mongering will win in the end.

Ah, that "tone" thing again.

My friends of color have this discussion all the time, it's never-ending. Do you take a calm and reasonable tone with people who express bigotry, in the hopes that you'll somehow, magically, reach them?

Or are you allowed to show your real sorrows and angers in the face of their ignorance and hurtfulness? Will it make any difference, which tone you take?

The jury is perrenially out on this. Personally, I think we are best off if we use the bad cop/good cop approach, and some people are vociferous and some people are reasonable. I've seen this approach work pretty well in discussions of racial issues.

Remember there are two groups of people we deal with. One group is horribly hurt if you let them know they've just shown signs of being bigoted. They can't believe it-- they are as open-minded as it's possible to be, and you are just an ungrateful minority member. And you don't appreciate their sincere efforts. And you've just called them the liberal equivalent of Satan-worshipper. And, in my experience, it doesn't matter how delicately you phrase your comment, you're going to get shock, horror and anger. For a while, anyway, and then, maybe, things will start to sink in.

The other group just doesnt give a fuck.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WH

Nope. Here's why.

GM stock is selling for about a dollar and analysts are screaming bankruptcy. The Postal Service is firing 40,000 workers. AIG just got another truck-load of cash. And the local paper just fired another 20 people.

The world is going to hell quickly.

By New Years gay marriage is gonna be last on everyone's list of shit to be excited about. Even the gays are gonna have their minds elsewhere.

If I was gay what I'd do is mend fences with the conservatives and grab the flaming homers by the balls..tell them to fucking chill out for a while.

I think your cause is doable but not if ACT UP and QUEER NATION is leading the parade.

 

[Safe_Bet]

True, but public opinion will have a lot to do with the final outcome, and IMHO the side that presents the appearance of calm, rational reasoning over hysterical fear-mongering will win in the end.

WH, what I tried to express and what Selena said so well, isn't part of some battle plan or reasoning in front of a court. I was simply trying to express the emotions, feelings and thoughts that ARE pertainent to the understanding of the impact of Prop 8.

I don't expect the opponents to Prop 8 to give a fuck what I feel or think. That posting wasn't for them. It was for the people who are on our "side", but think that the "solution" is to accept civil unions as the equal to true marriage. What I was trying to express is that they are not nor can they ever be "equal". They lack the sacred part that many of the "why can't you just accept civil unions with full rights" people don't understand.

 

[Boxlicker101]

True, but public opinion will have a lot to do with the final outcome, and IMHO the side that presents the appearance of calm, rational reasoning over hysterical fear-mongering will win in the end.

Public opinion has EVERYTHING to do with the final outcome, at least in California. I doubt if the state supreme court will rule against Prop. 8. SCOTUS might, but I wouldn't count on it. It's almost impossible for the legislature to repeal a law put in place by an initiative, especially something as controversial as this one, which means another initiative to repeal Prop. 8. These tend to be quite expensive to put through, unless you can get volunteers to gather signatures to put it on the ballot.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Not the entire opposition: the insurance industry quietly opposes same-sex marriages because "marriage" makes some automatic changes in coverages that removes the need for separate life and health insurance policies.

That's a purely economic opposition.

well yeah. But they're evil.

 

[Liar]

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but the Gubernator weighed in.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

 

[Safe_Bet]

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but the Gubernator weighed in.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

Sorry Arnold. "'We will maybe undo Prop 8" was pretty fucking Girlie-manish! I liked you better as a Republican, cuz at least THEN I knew where you really stood! Go ask Maria if she will lend you your balls back, dude!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Sorry Arnold. "'We will maybe undo Prop 8" was pretty fucking Girlie-manish! I liked you better as a Republican, cuz at least THEN I knew where you really stood! Go ask Maria if she will lend you your balls back, dude!

*snerk*