posted March 04, 2004 11:05 AM         

But either way, I'm just sick to death of hearing about it. They're gay. They're in love. Yay for them. Somebody make a decision already and move on.

Now, on to more important things, when do I get a parade?

But seriously, I just hate this stuff in my face all the time (I live in the SF Bay Area). I do think it opens a pandoras box - I mean, next well have man/boy love legalized, and polygamy, because hey, everybody has their right to be married in whatever manner they choose, right?

posted March 04, 2004 12:34 PM         

It's like when people said, "Well..black people can have a bathroom that is just as good as the one for the white folks. I just don't want to share mine with them."

Separate but equal just doesn't work. End of story.

I don't think allowing gay marriage opens the doors to someday allowing children to get married. I don't really see how that is related. They are minors and there are many many laws in this country protecting minors from sexual predators and even from themselves since we know they are too young to make all the decisions adults do. Mostly. (Okay.. so I wouldn't mind seeing the voting age lowered a year or two, but I digress..)

posted March 04, 2004 01:40 PM         

...blacks couldn't marry whites...

...women were not allowed to vote, or own property...

...blacks sat in the back of the bus...

...gay people never admitted their preferences...

...women could not have a safe, legal abortion...

...gay people couldn't marry.

It will happen.
The debate, the fight, remain a part of change.

So send lots of love and light to further illuminate those who are merely temporarily blinded to the many faces of love.

posted March 04, 2004 02:58 PM         

I would argue that seperate but equal DOES work in many cases, as in same-sex education for example. Studies show that girls do better in math and science when in classes excluding boys. I'm not saying 'seperate but equal' always applies, and I'm not necessarily advocating it in this case (gay marriage), but I wouldn't say it never works either.

I was only theorizing one reason why people may not approve of it (the religious connotations of marriage).

I do truly believe that once gay marriage is legal, we will have people campaigning for their "rights" to polygamy, and it will be all downhill from there.

posted March 04, 2004 04:21 PM         

Bah. There is no downhill. Why shouldn't polygamists marry? Love, after all, is still love. Everything else is just personal preference.

How can we say we are all one, one love, one god/dess...then not hope to practice it? How can we be one, with restrictions?

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace...you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...I hope some day you will join us, and the world will live as one..."
-J. Lennon

posted March 04, 2004 06:04 PM         

I agree love is love. Marriage until recently had nothing to do with love. (or at last it wasn¡¦t the primary reason to marry)

Marriage was designed really for the rearing of children. The woman gets pregnant who is the father?-Her husband. This is loosely how it has been around the world for ages. At least with societies that are patrilineal (¡¥parentage¡¦ is followed through the fathers line) like the West (I live in the US-Los Angeles to be specific).

This has nothing to do with love.

I don¡¦t know how I feel about the definition of marriage. I do know that a constitutional amendment to define a word is makes no sense to me. Society will decide and then inform ¡¥Webster¡¦ what a word means.

We give A LOT of benefits to married couples. Healthcare and retirement benefits are probably the most important. If my husband (he¡¦s not yet but it is fun to type) is ill and can¡¦t speak for himself, I simple because I am female can claim to be his wife and it will be awhile before I have to prove it. My friends who are ¡¥married¡¦ in their hearts do not get this respect. This could be covered by Civil Unions. The only problem is¡K

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

The good thing about this issue is that it is making people in the states ¡¥THINK¡¦ about what marriage means.

May 2-3 cents

Amber

posted March 04, 2004 07:36 PM         

¡¥THINK¡¦

Sorry for the diversion

juniperb

posted March 04, 2004 07:44 PM         

I am the worse speller (and I post at work)
I usaully write my comments in Word and then cut and paste them into the Reply section. Sometimes it great and sometimes leaves markings...

posted March 04, 2004 08:09 PM         

I don`t think I`ve said welcome yet. Glad to have another Libra here

juniperb

posted March 04, 2004 09:34 PM         

Mostly in Utah.

And honestly, so what if they do? Who would really care? Wouldn't that mean the state would only have to go after ONE man for child support for MANY women's children?

Think of it....we may have solved the "welfare moms" issue that Republicans insist is a bane on society.....right up there with gay marriage, the "liberal media" and civil liberties.

(is there an emoticon for "dripping sarcasm?" or else someone might think I was serious about that statement.)

I don't want to drag this post away from its original topic about SS marriage. But, as I am wont to do, I feel obligated to start a history speech....

(forgive me, I haven't slept in 31 hours)

Marriage was established by the father-centric, invading hordes that destroyed matrilineal societies by waging war on peaceful, mostly stationary hunter/gathering tribes. As these tribes "convinced" or rather slaughtered those folks who did not believe in their volcano gods (fire and brimstone raining from the sky, sound familiar?) suddenly, the instituition of MARRIAGE popped up.

These tribes were skilled at the breeding of animals, and primitive genetics. The invasions were based on the need for land for their animals. It finally dawned on mankind that women did not miracleously spawn life on their own- they needed a male.

Hence, the need to establish male dominance. Hence, because only a woman could know whom the father of her child was, and a man really had no idea if conception occurred, it was necessary to create a system ensuring the accuracy of paternal investment in offspring. Thus, woman and child became property of the man- just like cattle- so that a man would not waste energy sustaining a child that was not of his lineage (kinda like breeding stock.)

Blech. Is it any wonder why the Old Testament is full of "stone the virgin" and the price for female adultery? Never the man. If these acts were not penalized within the society, then men would lose the ability to "herd" his "stock." Women would possibly come to power again.....or at least equality.....

And yet, even as evolved as humans have grown socially and morally, we cling to this idea, based on such concepts.

No, I don't hate marriage, if anyone wants to get married, go for it. But I do believe that this memory is buried genetically in humans, and that's why people react with such revulsion to issues like SS marriage, sexually free women, abortion rights, even stem cell research is rife with questions that boil down to this view on "Universe."

Ok ok, sorry. It makes sense in my head, but in order to lay it all out with supporting evidence, I would have to start my own website.

This is a big mess of Church and State, and I am an enemy combatant in this battle.

Carry on, please.....I will shut up now....

posted March 05, 2004 05:11 PM         

Anyhow, marriage is a special bond between two people. It is a symbolism of the love that the two have for each other and it should not matter the gender of the couple. Love crosses all boundaries, it is a powerful force. Hopefully someday everyone will understand that and be more accepting of the beliefs and the lifestyles of others. I have some gay friends and they are the finest, most loving people I have ever known.

posted March 06, 2004 11:03 AM         

You wanted to marry a tree? Gee.. and people call me a tree-hugger.. LOL

posted March 06, 2004 09:28 PM         

Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?
Over 3,500 gay marriages and, what, no hellfire? I was promised hellfire. And riots. What gives?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/03/05/notes030504.DTL

Very tongue-in-cheek.....

quote:

---

It's anarchy," some guy named Rick Forcier, of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition, actually whined. "We seem to have lost the rule of law. It's very frightening when every community decides what laws they will obey." Why, yes, Rick. It's total anarchy. Just look at all the screaming and the bloodshed and the gunfire. Run and hide, Rick. The gay people in love are coming. And they've got tattoos and funny haircuts and want to get married and celebrate their love and be left alone. Hide the children.

---