I think if he could get it through the senate he might be able to pass a nationwide ban. And, to me, that's a pretty sad thought.

But he, and pretty much everyone else in power, say they support a "civil union." this is basically, legally, the same thing as a marrige but the word marrige is not used and they don't have a marrige license. so really this is a fight about a word. Whether a gay couple is married or not has no effect on my day to day life and I could give a crap about it. But the fact remains that in America marrige is a failed institution and yet we insist on continuing it. If 50% of the cars we made broke down and stopped working one year after they were made, people would not buy cars until the problem was fixed. If 50% of all planes that took off crashed people would not fly. If 50% of the time you went to a club you ended up losing half of your possesions and net worth, you wouldn't be going to a club. If 50% of the time you asked someone a question they lied to you, you would stop asking that person a question. But over 50% of all marriges end in divorce and people still do it and somehow it still holds a high place in this society. Gays can do no more damage to marrige than has already been done to it. I am always worried when they start altering the consitution, especially when they do it to discriminate against any one group of people. I say they take a bold stance and ban marrige in general.

I don't care about an acutal word, I care about the rights that go along with it. It is real nice for them all to say they support same sex unions but then where are they?

Half the states that just passed bans on gay marriage also included bans on the state recognizing any sort of civil unions.

Bush, virtually all elected republicans, and the wording of these 'gay marriage bans' also makes civil unions illegal, and denies any legal recognition of similar rights for homosexual couples. This isn't just about the word "marriage"; it's bible-based bigotry from a religious mob who believe they can legislate homosexuality out of existence.

Neo conservatives supporting civil unions is propoganda, designed to make non neo conservatives who are uncomfortable with the concept of gay marriage feel okay about it all.

It makes moderate conservatives feel they are leaving a loophole, and not being overly discriminatory. Kind of makes the whole thing palatable to them.

But it's simply propoganda. There is NO support for civil unions in this agenda. If a constitutional ban on gay marriage passes, there will next be opposition to civil unions as well.

Liken it to members of the KKK saying they want interracial marriage prohibited, but support interracial civil unions. Obviously this would be false. This is no different. Oh - and before any conservatives get bent out of shape, I'm not comparing Republicans to the KKK. I was using an extreme to make an example.

Fucking Texan cowboys....

Amazing being in the 21st century...

Let the witch hunt begin!

That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. So, what your saying is, all the parents of the currently gay population are gay themselves. They were raised in a non gay enviroment yet they are gay. You know, making shit up like that may make you feel smart but all it does is make you look like an uninformed jackass.

Plus, most of the other shit you said is just plain stupid. I'm guess you're one of this very active anti-gay people..

I love America All I can see is hate on this baord for America. If you dont like where you live then move!

Being gay is wrong plain a simple! It was not ment to be but as America is the land of the free you can be gay but just cant join in Marriage with the rest of the society. I dont see what you all dont understand about that?

PS: if your not AMERICAN then STFU

damn dirty queers.

I'm an American. I love this country. You confuse criticism with hate. I'm not moving so deal with people like me or get out. :2 cents:

This is the most dangerous (and tired) propoganda line. 'If you disagree - you hate America!'

Thank god nearly half the country disagrees with this view.

What's wrong with being gay? I think someone's in denial about something. Go on, you can share with us. You get all hot and bothered when you watch Christopher Lowell decorate. You can admit it, you are amongst anonymous friends here.

If you can live one day in your society without getting offended, then you aren't living in a free society. I forget who said that, but it's one of my favorite quotes.

Point of order . . .there are states that allow for same sex partnerships, that grant benefits to some guy's boyfriend, that I can't get for my girlfriend unless I decide to marry her.

How fair is that?

It's a first step in the right direction.

People like you is what's wrong with this country/world.

:)

I can't believe some people here are arguing that this is something that should be decided by states, as if civil rights can be given and taken away from state to state.

Ludicrous.

do you live with your girlfriend? do you want her to be the benificiary on your insurance policy? when you die, do you want her buried next to you?

seems to me there is something that protects a man/woman couple who fits the above conditions. it's called a common law marriage

why can't I have a civil union with some chick without marrying her?

To be truthful, you can thank the same people for that that want to ban gay marriage.

They don't think you deserve those rights unless you marry your girlfriend. Unless you get married, you are living in sin (their view). It's the reverse polarity of the same problem.

common law marriage may be accepted in the sticks of TX, but it is not recognized here in CA

I just get back from the "Home for the very very nervous" having suffered a nervous break down the night of the election and I see this post.

It makes me very very happy to be a "blue state".

I thought Lens wasn't allowing any more 13 year old poor spellers on the board anymore once he banned Boobmaster?

CA does not allow same sex marriages, it does not recognize common law marriages.

Two guys or two chicks can have a partnership where their significant other collects benefits just like a married couple.

I can't have those same benefits unless I get married.

See post above. You are 'living in sin' by living with your unmarried girlfriend. I'm sure they feel granting you a civil union would be 'dangerous to marriage as an institution'.

Civil unions for gays are just a bone thrown by neo conservatives to more moderate conservatives to make them think discrimination isn't happening.

The point being - I don't think it's the libs keeping you from being able to form a legal civil union with your GF.

then i guess you'll have to work to get those laws changed. that is, if you were using the situation with your girlfriend as a sincere example :winkwink:

You still have to go through the legal process to be granted these rights. The exact same way you have to for either common law or normal marriage.

Not to mention the very notion that you trust somebody enough that you want them to have all of the rights they would have if you were married, but you don't want to actually marry them is a little odd to say the least.

I imagine what they're offering gays is a substitute for getting married and would go away if they were allowed to get married. The bay area calls it "domestic partnership", and you have to register at city hall, just like in a marriage.

If you would like to change position to gain a few benefits like marriage, but not all and not be allowed to get married, just date a guy. :Graucho

58% of the population voted 51% for Bush.

That means only 30% of the USA population voted for Bush.

throwing them a bone? how about throwing me a fucking bone once in a while?

there is no one up in arms over straight's rights

Many states reckognize common law marriage.

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/commonlawmarriage.htm

weak

Ahem, CA DOES reckognize common law marriages.

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/commonlawmarriage.htm

So organize and start a movement.

My point is, I seriously doubt the gays are lobbying against man/woman civil unions. And their lobbying for their rights doesn't leave them time to protest yours as a straight person.

You just don't see gay marches carrying signs saying "down with straights!"

If someone doesn't vote, then their preference means squat. Either vote or STFU about politics (not directed at anyone specific).

Yeah, if you got common law status in another state. I am not going to move to the sticks so I can get common law status then move back to paradise

why weak? Because I am a white, straight guy I have to get stepped on again? and yeah, civil unions for same sex partners is an additional burden on the system, don't even think that there is no cost involved that is borne by everyone

that is, if you indeed want those benefits in the first place. after all, those benefits only come when you're willing to commit.

is that your situtation mr dog?

:thumbsup

well, I am not against opposite gender unions either. Though, I guess the basic difference is that you could get married if you wanted to.

well then you don't want it badly enough. Look at the stuff gay couples are willing to go through to be together? I wish everyone of whatever sexual preference had to go through so much to get married. There would be a lot less divorce.

Which btw is an interesting aspect of the same sex unions that are newly available in the UK - there is a divorce process. Anyone that has has a union can't just break up without going through a divorce type process like a straight couple. Marriage has responsibilities and any equvilent for same sex couples.

Why should benefits be only for committed heterosexual couples?

Common law marriage is also not recognized in the sticks of GA.

oh and when I say I wish straight people had to go through a lot to get married that is coming from someone that had to get gov't approval for my marriage since I was marrying a British person and planning on living here. I had to prove that I was in love...such fun.

Did you even read the post? When someone says they want to ban somehting for a more decent socioty thent hey are saying that what they want to ban is indecent. Pretty simple dude. Please tell me you arent that blinded by your support for Dubya.

That was because you done it all back to front. Getting married and then getting approval is MUCH easier ;)

yeah but we were told that was sort of against the rules if we were getting married in the UK. It was worth it and actually the finally perm residency approval was the biggest pain. I am going for dual citizenship as soon as I get off my ass and send the check in so we will see how easy that will be.

I was going to reply, but this has just gotten silly. Purposely taking people's words out of context is not debating.

Only sort of. The way they word it is confusing. You are not allowed to fly over with the intent to marry and live here without the correct forms and permission. However, you are fully allowed to fly over for a visit of up to 6 months, then decide to marry once here, get married and then send off the form and get the leave to stay stamp :Graucho

The main thing is you got there in the end though. I/we will be VERY interested in how the dual thing goes. Let me know!

Because this way he apeases to somewhat both groups. chuch can keep the "sarced" name of marridge and gay people can get the rights that is the underlying goals.