[Kar98]

I'm not sure about gay marriage. On one hand, I don't give a toss what other people do. On the other hand, I want to see what happens when two married-to-each-other women are trying to get in the last word.

[Kar98]

Originally Posted by sir_eccles The over riding problem with this issue is there are rights at a federal level which conflict with rights at a state level.

I thought that issue had been settled in the 1860s.

[Sally Redux]

Originally Posted by Kar98 I'm not sure about gay marriage. On one hand, I don't give a toss what other people do. On the other hand, I want to see what happens when two married-to-each-other women are trying to get in the last word.

© Bernard Manning 1970.

[Kar98]

Who?

[WEBlue]

Originally Posted by BellaE As the parent of a gay child, I would like him to have the right to get really married (if he wanted to,) and by really married, I mean not just in one of a few states. And if he (a USC) married an immigrant, he should be able to sponsor that immigrant for a green card. I just don't understand why marriage is legislated at the state level, when so many federal regulations from taxation to immigration are dependent on marital status.

Of course. Anyone's child should be able to marry & thus acquire broadly the same "marital" rights (immigration, taxation, inheritance, et al) as any other wedded couple, regardless of sexual orientation. This is a flaw in the American system, that there is sometimes this disconnect between state & federal legalities that will cause inequality. This flaw can only be fixed at the federal level, IMO. We can't sit & wait for each & every state to come on board to allow same-sex marriage, because that may take a long time . . . or may never happen. It's time for congress to act.

Excellent Daily Beast piece by Andrew Sullivan, 'Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America'.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...r-america.html

(I don't always agree with Sullivan's politics, but this essay shows exactly why NO one should be excluded from the possibility of a marital bond.)

[tinman0]

Originally Posted by WEBlue Civil unions are fine, as long as they are legally upheld for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals across the board, such as for immigration purposes. The UK can do this, but the US does not . . . .

Thats....not exactly going to work now? Is it? The US can't exactly uphold a UK law....(even for immigration).

As for marriages/civil unions - same thing really and course they should be allowed. But not in church because that doesn't really fly.

Anyway, just think of the gossip sheets when people like Elton John gets divorced and they all start bitching over his money. IIRC, Navratilova had a gay marriage, went to get divorced a few years later and found a bit of a lawsuit on her hands over her cash - claimed that the marriage was real because both partners were the same sex...

[WEBlue]

Originally Posted by tinman0 Thats....not exactly going to work now? Is it? The US can't exactly uphold a UK law....(even for immigration).

Non no, you're misunderstanding what I said. I said same-sex partners need similar rights *within the USA* to those enjoyed by same-sex married partners in the UK. I don't expect the US to uphold a UK law; I expect the US to change their own laws to treat same-sex partners in somewhat as civilized a fashion as the UK treats theirs.

Seems crazy that an American can 'marry' a foreigner in some US states, but that that foreigner can't be sponsored for a spouse visa because of gender. Would you want a child of yours to marry a foreigner, then have to leave the country because the spouse couldn't live in the US?

As for marriages/civil unions - same thing really and course they should be allowed. But not in church because that doesn't really fly.

I agree, a church ceremony is not the point. I think some churches may welcome same-sex ceremonies & some may not. This should be completely up to the church, not the government, but this is only my opinion. . . .

Anyway, just think of the gossip sheets when people like Elton John gets divorced and they all start bitching over his money. IIRC, Navratilova had a gay marriage, went to get divorced a few years later and found a bit of a lawsuit on her hands over her cash - claimed that the marriage was real because both partners were the same sex...

Elton John went through a civil ceremony in the UK. He hasn't divorced yet, but one could say that hetero celebs are just as prone to messy public spectacles when they part as same-sex couples.

Martina Navartilova was a very different case. She & the partner who sued her a few years back were never legally married, but aupposedly agreed to split all earnings 50-50. This has also happened to lots of high-profile hetero couples who never tied the knot officially, that one will sue the other for promises made in the course of the relationship.

[tinman0]

Originally Posted by WEBlue I agree, a church ceremony is not the point. I think some churches may welcome same-sex ceremonies & some may not. This should be completely up to the church, not the government, but this is only my opinion. . . .

I think you are some what out of touch with Christian teaching. How can you marry a same sex partner in the eyes of God when the Bible is specifically against homosexuality?

I agree that it should be up to the church in question to choose, but the UK is a monster nanny state where Government officials and politicians know best. Heaven forbid someone thinks for themselves.

[tinman0]

Originally Posted by WEBlue Elton John went through a civil ceremony in the UK. He hasn't divorced yet, but one could say that hetero celebs are just as prone to messy public spectacles when they part as same-sex couples. Martina Navartilova was a very different case. She & the partner who sued her a few years back were never legally married, but aupposedly agreed to split all earnings 50-50. This has also happened to lots of high-profile hetero couples who never tied the knot officially, that one will sue the other for promises made in the course of the relationship.

Elton - totally agree - I just think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let them marry and let us enjoy the divorce, just like we do with anyone else.

As for Navratilova - I thought she got married (or at least had a ceremony) on a beach somewhere. When it came time to "divorce" that's when she started to redefine the definition of their relationship - mainly in an attempt to reduce the payout?

[WEBlue]

Originally Posted by tinman0 I think you are some what out of touch with Christian teaching. How can you marry a same sex partner in the eyes of God when the Bible is specifically against homosexuality?

No, I don't think I'm out of touch. This is from 2005, 7 years ago.

US Church backs same-sex marriage The million-strong United Church of Christ (UCC) has become the first major US Christian denomination to come out in support of gay marriage. The UCC's general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal rights for couples regardless of gender". The decision is not binding and will not require pastors to marry same-sex couples, though some already do. Several other Churches have endorsed gay civil partnerships but have not given them the status of marriage. The Episcopal Church (the US branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church permit same-sex unions, while the Presbyterian Church is seeking to resolve severe disagreements over the issue. US conservatives are seeking to amend the country's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which is currently legal only in the state of Massachusetts. Vermont allows same-sex civil unions, giving gay couples the same benefits as married couples on matters such as life insurance, health care and child custody. Neighbouring Canada's lower house of parliament passed a law allowing gay marriages last week, which is expected to come into force in July.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by tinman0 I think you are some what out of touch with Christian teaching. How can you marry a same sex partner in the eyes of God when the Bible is specifically against homosexuality? I agree that it should be up to the church in question to choose, but the UK is a monster nanny state where Government officials and politicians know best. Heaven forbid someone thinks for themselves.

I've never really understood this "nanny state" accusation. I myself find state meddling and bureaucracy (federal, state, county, town etc.) more intrusive in the US than I ever did in the UK.

[sir_eccles]

Originally Posted by tinman0 I think you are some what out of touch with Christian teaching. How can you marry a same sex partner in the eyes of God when the Bible is specifically against homosexuality?

Strictly speaking the bible is specifically against a whole load of shit that the modern world doesn't care about any more.

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by sir_eccles Strictly speaking the bible is specifically against a whole load of shit that the modern world doesn't care about any more.

Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Do WalMart know about this one?

[Anian]

Leviticus 19:19
"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

I'm pretty sure that there aren't all that many wedding dresses made from a single material.

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by Anian Leviticus 19:19 "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." I'm pretty sure that there aren't all that many wedding dresses made from a single material.

The washing instructions in those days were pretty basic.. and in Aramaic only, of course.