you guys will hate me....

[Silverluna]

But I think the whole San Fran thing is a farce.....these people are being dupped into thinking that their marriage liscenses are real....they are illegal and the mayor of San Fran is dupping the GLBT community by saying that these marriages are legal...


And no its not civil disobedience.....


I am willing to defend my position should someone care to try and sway my thinking.

 

[Queersetti]

I think that those who are getting the licenses know that they are making a symbolic gesture that doesn't carry any legal weight. It does, however, carry moral weight and that is the point.


How is what is happening in SF not civil disobedience?

 

[Silverluna]

actually the civil disobedience was a private joke that i snuck in here with it from our glbt meeting last thursday...


anyway!


I just hope they aren't actually taking this to be something serious because it will look bad for the whole lot of us if something like this blows up in our face...


Our/us=the whole glbt nation



I am all for gay/lesbian marriages...or civil unions....just why do they have to go against the law?

 

[Bitchslapper]

He/she does raise an interesting point I hadn't thought of, which is (I think) "If we want (legal) gay marriage, then why are we in favor of what's going on in San Fransisco?"

I'm not sure I completely agree though. I see both sides of the issue. One side says it's a gesture, the other side says yes, but it's a pointless one. As usual I disagree with both sides (or in this case it may be more correct to say I agree with both). On the one hand, I think the gesture might have an effect. How big of one and how soon is another matter. On the other hand, it is starting to look a little farcical to me. I almost wonder if it might have a negative effect. I mean, if the goal is to be allowed to be married, then what's the point of getting a marriage license that's worth nothing more than the paper it's printed on? I suppose it's just a statement, because the marriage has no practical, legal standing. But I know that if I did that, I would probably feel kind of silly.

 

[thickspear]

hmm...i sense a wacky movie in the gay marriage thingy..

juxtaposing the sweet, harmless (don't so many of the people waiting in line remind of the kind of kids that never quite fit in to school social scenes ?) couples waiting patiently to get married hour after hour...

with the angry faces of political/marital gate keepers calling for demonstrations and constitutional amendments...and the equally sour faced religeous arbitors of morality who swear hetero marriage and all things rightous are being threatened...

makes me wanna marry a guy just to piss em off ....any takers ?

ts

 

[Cigan]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. It is indeed civil disobedience. On a level which is somewhat unprecidented and being commited by a major, but civil disobedience none the less. And the fact that the marriage licences are not legal now does not mean they will never be. You have to remember we are a country founded by revolution. The "noble experiment" worked because we are willing to break the rules sometimes. Follow the logical path here. The mayor does this, not because it is legal but merely because it is right. So these licenses go out. Now it of course goes to the court because this violates too many laws to count. At this point the courts seem to be siding in favor of the mayor. Thus far it has merely been an issue of imminent threat. Since there is no immediate damage an injunction to order the major to stop the licenses will not be issued until arguments are heard. Now this certainly doesn't establish any legal grounds for saying that S.F. will win this one. However if it goes to the courts and the California courts say that it is against their constitution to deny same sex couples marriage, then bam. Now you could go the traditional route of taking it to the courts, but this adds a certain punch. Who is hurt by these people having the licenses. No one. If you go to the courts that concept is vaugely heard, but when the licences have been issued it makes it more apparent. It's a big publicity stunt for the sake of the legal proceedings when you get right down to it. It's also a big gamble, it could backfire, but it also accelerates the issue and forces people like the president to deal with it. The president won the last election because of moderates who voted for him. This leaves him between a rock and a hard place he has to denouce all of this "homo marriage evil" or the fundies leave him, and he isn't popular enough to sacrifice votes, on the other hand he is positioned to loose the very apathetic moderates that kept the last election close enough for him to win in the courts. Now Nader is coming back, but he is an independant with no money at his back this time. This also does not bode well for Bush. It may be cynical of me but I see the whole thing as one big political play. But I also believe that good can come out of evil, and I don't care how we get our rights, just so long as we do.

 

[Queersetti]

actually the civil disobedience was a private joke that i snuck in here with it from our glbt meeting last thursday...


anyway!


I just hope they aren't actually taking this to be something serious because it will look bad for the whole lot of us if something like this blows up in our face...


Our/us=the whole glbt nation



I am all for gay/lesbian marriages...or civil unions....just why do they have to go against the law?

How do you change an unjust law?

The United States Constitution guarantees equal rights to all citizens. Any law that restricts those rights for certain groups is unconstitutional, and needs to be overturned.

Before a law can be overturned, it must be challenged, and you can only challenge a law in court by breaking it.

 

[SadieRose]

How do you change an unjust law?

The United States Constitution guarantees equal rights to all citizens. Any law that restricts those rights for certain groups is unconstitutional, and needs to be overturned.

Before a law can be overturned, it must be challenged, and you can only challenge a law in court by breaking it.

Quite right. That's how women got the vote in this country (uk) and how homosexuality gradually came to be decriminalised for all but a few.

So take part in your very public legal bindings or weddings or whatever you want to call them, but make sure that you afterwards insist that all authorities regard you as husband and husband or wife and wife or whatever you choose to call yourselves and treat you and your partner accordingly.

If enough people make a big enough fuss about this worldwide then sooner or later these civil ceremonies will HAVE to be regarded as legally binding.

Think of it like this; your country's government is actively promoting a shiftless, promiscuous lifestyle for all but its straight, child-bearing, middle class voters!

If gay couples can adopt and raise children, why can't they be married? It smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy, as usual!

 

[MzChrista]

actually the civil disobedience was a private joke that i snuck in here with it from our glbt meeting last thursday...


anyway!


I just hope they aren't actually taking this to be something serious because it will look bad for the whole lot of us if something like this blows up in our face...


Our/us=the whole glbt nation



I am all for gay/lesbian marriages...or civil unions....just why do they have to go against the law?

No offense but you said in another thread you got a boyfreind. Well I got a girlfriend.

You two can get married. We cant. Some of have a little more at stake than others. That "glbt nation" stuff is all well and good but you might want to consider that.

 

[angela146]

Does anyone know if any of the marriages were conducted by clergy (as opposed to civil authorities)?

If so, it would raise an interesting issue of freedom of religion.

You might want to seek out an Episcopal priest or bishop to do the ceremony.

"...those whom God has joined together, let no one put asunder..."

 

[Silverluna]

No offense but you said in another thread you got a boyfreind. Well I got a girlfriend.

You two can get married. We cant. Some of have a little more at stake than others. That "glbt nation" stuff is all well and good but you might want to consider that.

Are you saying that since I have a boyfriend I couldn't possibly understand what its like to want to marry a female?? You don't know me, I had a female love of my life....and she got married to a man....I did at that time want to make her my wife....So much for that eh?

Just because I am bisexual doesn't make me excluded from this...

 

[Silverluna]

I respect all of you guys' opinions...if you'll respect my freedom to voice mine....I'll listen to yours.

 

[Etoile]

I don't think anybody's being duped into anything. It's purely a symbolic gesture.

As an interesting but unimportant side note, my girlfriend said she'd get a license with me if we lived there! Even though we have been together for six years we aren't married (or civil unioned, or had a commitment ceremony) yet. She was married - to a man - for 10 years before we were together, so I'm hoping that at 10 years maybe she and I can have a ceremony too! But when I said "I bet you wouldn't get a marriage license with me if we lived there" she said she would! For the symbolism. Too awesome. http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/inlovegrin.gif

 

[Silverluna]

Etoile, I wish you and your lady that chance to be married...or unioned...or handfasted as we Pagans call it...

 

[Netzach]

I didn't want to get married, wouldn't consider it. But then I met this bisexual sub guy..and then all my queer friends started marrying their same sex partners, getting committed, whatever you want to call it....

If they grant civil unions then M and I will be at the head of the opposite sex couple line to get one of those instead of married. As an institution marriage is highly problematic for me, maybe in the future we can get it right when we make it civic, simple, egalitarian, and accessible.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Interesting theory, but I think civil unions for hetero couples is farther away than marriage for homosexual couples (unless they already have civil unions for straight couples?).

 

[Silverluna]

If I end up marrying my SO I might have a civil union just for spite ....hehe

 

[Bitchslapper]

Hmm, interesting idea...

I just thought of something. Once this gay marriage thing is all legal and in the clear, how long do you think it will be before plural marriages are accepted?

 

[thickspear]

marriage as a romantic union is still rather new..most marriages in history were for practical reasons and life spans were much shorter..and the practicality of a union is still a prominant motivation..

so i propose we do away with the " till death " in favor of renewable leases...smile...

i discussed the idea with friends over a few drinks...it's a novel idea but i think such an arrangement will result in better behaved spouses...that is: less taking one another for granted

and renewal parties..smile.

 

[Etoile]

Hmm, interesting idea...

I just thought of something. Once this gay marriage thing is all legal and in the clear, how long do you think it will be before plural marriages are accepted?

Trust me, you are not the first person to think of this. Many many conservative politicians use that as an argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.

The Feb 13th issue of the Washington Blade (my local gay paper) had an article on page 12 called Utah polygamy suit cites Lawrence ruling. Here's a relevant quote from the article:

Susan Sommers, supervising attorney for the gay litigation group Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, said same-sex marriage involves a union between two people, which doesn’t alter the “structure” of the nation’s marriage laws. Polygamy, Sommers said, would present a radical departure from the institution of marriage as a “binary unit for two people.”

 

[Silverluna]

marriage as a romantic union is still rather new..most marriages in history were for practical reasons and life spans were much shorter..and the practicality of a union is still a prominant motivation..

so i propose we do away with the " till death " in favor of renewable leases...smile...

i discussed the idea with friends over a few drinks...it's a novel idea but i think such an arrangement will result in better behaved spouses...that is: less taking one another for granted

and renewal parties..smile.

Its called HandFasting....

 

[MzChrista]

Are you saying that since I have a boyfriend I couldn't possibly understand what its like to want to marry a female?? You don't know me, I had a female love of my life....and she got married to a man....I did at that time want to make her my wife....So much for that eh?

Just because I am bisexual doesn't make me excluded from this...

No thats not what Im saying.

But facts are facts. You are in a relationship with a man. I am in a relationship with a woman. You can marry the person you love and I cant. Maybe if you were in my shoes you might feel different on the law.

 

[DustyWolfe]

No thats not what Im saying.

But facts are facts. You are in a relationship with a man. I am in a relationship with a woman. You can marry the person you love and I cant. Maybe if you were in my shoes you might feel different on the law.

EXACTLY... I want to marry my girl, not just call her my girlfriend, partner, lover. Fuck that. I want to call her my wife. I want her to be on my insurance. I want to have a real wedding and be legally married.

Perhaps San Fran went about this the wrong way, but at least they tried. It's more than others have done. But now... I hope it's not all in vain.

 

[Cigan]

Interesting theory, but I think civil unions for hetero couples is farther away than marriage for homosexual couples (unless they already have civil unions for straight couples?).

Actually in some states the civil union legislation does account for straight people. I'm not entirely sure how it works. I think it mostly has to do with people who are devoted to each other, but do not necesserily want to be bound for life. I think mostly it's decided based on personal reasons within couples. But I know there is infrastructure for it in some places. Though not many.

 

[Cigan]

No thats not what Im saying.

But facts are facts. You are in a relationship with a man. I am in a relationship with a woman. You can marry the person you love and I cant. Maybe if you were in my shoes you might feel different on the law.

I looked back at Silverluna's posts and I didn't see anything saying she is against gay marriage. In fact much of what she said was in support of it (specifically her comments to Etoile). I agree with her views on legitimacy for the SF licences. They are just symbolic, and that is important. No one says you can't get married. The say you can't get married and get legal benefits. There are many priests who will perform the ceremony, and the SF licences don't give you any legal benefits either. Not just yet. So I don't see what you mean about her feeling differently about the law. I know I am not her, but I feel that it is appropriate that I defend her to some extent here. So she isn't with a woman right now, I still think given the previous experience she spoke of earlier that she can indeed understand how you feel as well as anyone other than you can possibly understand how you feel. You may not mean too, but it seems like you are writting off her opinion, and from her posts here I do not believe she deserves that.