Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Same Sex Marriage Legal

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html

Huzzah! Yeah, this is old news, but the first marriage took place today, so it seemed relevant

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/samesex_marriag_3.html

 

Cool. The states is slowly becoming like 'Gay us to the North' as Jon Stewart puts it.

 

I wonder if any of our forefathers were gay.

 

As I understand it, marriage is a holy union between a man and a women, it is a religious thing. I am fine with that as this would be per religious sect and to a point they can have whatever rules they want. A civil union gives all the benefits of marriage without the religious aspect. So since this doesn't force any religious sect to recognize the union I don't have a problem with that.

I don't really see why someone would be against civil unions. I hear people who are against it calming that marriage is a holy union between a man and a women. Okay sure but, we are talking about civil unions here. I would be against a law that forces religious sects into recognizing the civil unions as married and/or have to preform the ceremonies.

 

re: marriage: it's a legal contract, with legal benefits for both partners. The legal argument against civil unions is basically, why would you want to rewrite hundreds/thousands of occurrences of "marriage" to be "marriage or civil union" in all the laws in the books across whichever state you're talking about? It's excessively tedious and time consuming.

I agree that religious whoevers shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremony if they don't personally condone it, but hey, that's what the court house is for. Also, teh internetz lets you get certified to perform marriages, wee!

 

There are religions that permit gay marriage.

Remember, when we say religion, that is more than just the big three.

 

gay marriage = gross - sorry tru story.

 

They aren't going to be forcing you into one, so why do you care enough to deny them happiness ?

 

I didn't specify which religion on purpose. It is just the at least loudest opponents of it are from some religious group.

 

<3 CT so much.

It's OK. I'd rather die than marry you, so we're in the same boat. How about you don't force me to marry a man if I want to get married, and I won't force you to marry one either. Deal?

As for religions...I'm sure many of my relatives are leading the charge against gay marriage. Argh.

See also: Keith Olbermann

 

i just think its gross, nor do i care about them getting married, i just dont approve, ez as that, and to Shoji ..umm ok? :/ lol

 

You don't have to approve. Just don't stand in it's way.

 

Lesbians are okay because you can't argue some chicks can be pretty damn hot.

 

So what stops them finding a partner of the opposite sex and forming a marriage of convenience now ?

 

say goodbye to geicko =) owned!

 

So I am opposed to calling marriage anything other than a union between a man and a woman. I base this on the definition of the word in it's religious context.

That being said, I am all in favor of civil unions. I do want people to have the opportunity to love freely.

I am interested, though, in any anti- positions against civil unions. It would seem, as some of you have mentioned, that it would become an administrative nightmare, expensive to implement, etc....but those objections probably also occurred when we gave all races and genders the right to vote and own property. Such are the consequences of phrasing contracts too traditionally and not keeping up with the times.

What I am absolutely NOT in favor of, though, is that the matter's being taken to the state courts. In no way should a person be forced to deal with state inequality or potentially have to move because of their orientation and pursuit of equality. I strongly feel that a national referendum is overdue.

 

I read a really good blog post about that very subject the other day. The (straight, as far as I know) blogger wrote a letter to her friend who objected to homosexuals getting married because of the religious context of the term "marriage". The full text of the blog is here, but the part that is relevant to remember is:

TLDR version: "Marriage" is older than religion. Just because various religions have redefined marriage over the years does not mean that any one religion owns "marriage" or should define it for everyone else.

 

Wow. I'm afraid I'm stuck.

My positions can be summed up here.

That being said, your post got me thinking. First, I want to avoid an etymological argument. The word marriage itself comes from late 13th century Franciscan monks.

But arguments about ancient historical unions across non-Christian cultures still deserve consideration.

Yes, people across all time have joined together. The Catholic position (as I, certainly not a Catholic theologian or apologist, understand it) is that such unions are inspired by God as part of natural law. If you don't believe that, then there's the rub. I respect your position and your desire for happiness though. I genuinely sympathize.

In any case, that our forefathers used the term "marriage" and never updated their implied assumptions of what the term means to them has created quite an unfortunate problem in this age's hunt for equality.

 

TLDR version:
Shoji thinks attaching the values of things to words is problematic.
Shoji thinks God <3s gays and is smart enough to have made them that way on purpose
Shoji thinks you can believe whatever you want, whether or not you agree with her! Yay! Let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya!
Shoji <3s people for supporting gay civil marriages, and applauds you if you support civil gay marriages even though the thought of gay people makes you throw up a little bit.

Wall of text incoming:

Except that itself presents a very serious problem for the Christian argument against gay marriage...

...What word was used in the original spoken/written version of the Bible, which was created long before the 13th century? "Marriage" can't even be a legitimate part of the true Biblical Christian tradition if it didn't exist for another 13+ centuries, right?

So, now we're really stuck as to what the unions between two people as described in the Bible are if they aren't a "marriage"!

But seriously, we can wrangle over words all day. The truth is that this just highlights what's wrong with attaching the whole value of something to what it's called. Christian marriages existed long before there was even "marriage"! And those people were just as married as the people were after the term was invented.

Or what if you believe that your same-sex union is inspired by God as part of natural law?

How many people do we have on the planet now?

Do we really need EVERYONE to make more people? Don't we have enough?

How about all of the children who are unwanted and need good homes? Who will take them in if everyone is busy making their own children?

Is it really a coincidence, that right now, at the moment of the highest population in earth's history, with people crushed by overpopulation and food crises, that we have a sudden visible explosion of gay people, who cannot accidentally add to the world's population, yet can provide a stable loving home for a child someone else created?

Doesn't every human deserve love? A happy family?

I very much, with all of my mind, heart, and soul, believe that I am absolutely as God intended. I believe that gay people are not a mistake or an aberration. That we are part of His great plan, and part of how He looks out for all of humankind.

Maybe I am wrong.

Maybe people who believe differently than me are wrong.

I don't know.

But like all people of all religions, I take it on faith. And someday, I guess I'll find out. And if I have erred toward thinking that God is more merciful, is more creative, is more loving than He really is? Then I'm fine with that. Because really, why would I want to give God any less credit than He deserves, and err on the side of believing Him to be petty and small and hateful? Seems like bad form to me.

I don't want anyone to tell me my religion is "wrong", and I sure don't want to tell anyone else their religion is "wrong" because...we don't know for sure! So definitely, count me out of any group that tries to force any religion or church to accept my beliefs (I don't need to force your church to allow me to get married in your church--I can get married in my own church or at city hall just fine thanks! )! But I would hope that my government would allow me to practice according to my own, so long as they don't hurt anyone else (i.e. ritual human sacrifice may be part of your religion, but it's a really good idea that that should still be illegal. ).

Sorry, got all emo/soapboxy and I keep neglecting to respond to this very fine point:

TRUTH!

Anyway, I do want to say a personal thanks from me to anyone who puts aside any personal religiously-based or just plain "ewww that's gross" reactions and looks at this objectively as a civil/legal matter (as well as one of the heart). If your initial emotional reaction to gay people is squeamish, yet deeper down your heart and soul and mind and sense of what's fair and right tell you to overcome that and support us, then I applaud you and thank you. It's easy to fight for something that affects you personally, but it's harder to fight for something that bothers you on one level yet you know that doing the right thing goes against your emotional response.