Jump to content

The Time Has Come

31 replies to this topic


  • Members
  • 5 posts
taxation without representation was the basis for America's war for independence. lesbians and gays work hard and pay taxes, and shouldn't be denied the benefits of those taxes. i say, take the religious connotation out of government sanctioned relationships and quit calling them marriages. call government recognized unions civil unions. let the various religious denominations worry about who they marry.

unfortunately, i think TPTB (the powers that be) in the White House...and i'm not really sure who that is (apparently neither are they)...believe America didn't exist until the fundamentalist religions of The Great Awakening, and later, came into being. these people have the worst grasp of what America's about of any administration in our history.

hmmmm, except that they knew to court Gays in the 2000 election to get their votes, and then dump them.


  • Members
  • 29 posts


Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

The dumber people think you are, the more suprised they'll be when you kill them....


  • Members
  • 43 posts
A great website that is full of articulate, logical and heartfelt reasons why gay marriage should be legalized, everyone should check out this link



  • Members
  • 48 posts
I love the sarcasm!! Those are great.
I'm also reading the Independent Gay Forum. Carrie posted the site link for that. Very good stuff.
I'm a bit confused on what civil unions means exactly. Does that just mean those who want to get married can't get married through the courts or . . . O shit. I don't know what I'm trying to ask! I just don't know what civil unions means exactly. :oops: :twisted:
~Never discuss politics or religion with friends or family because opinions are like assholes-- everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.~

Fat Ephiny

  • Members
  • 25 posts


i say, take the religious connotation out of government sanctioned relationships and quit calling them marriages. call government recognized unions civil unions. let the various religious denominations worry about who they marry. .

I LOVE presenting just this option to as many people I can, Modron. All this debate has led me to the conclusion that there just shouldn't be "marriage" for anyone. This religious based union-making shouldn't be the law of the land. Everything that the current marriage "institution" bestows automatically can be taken care of legally already: next of kin, durable power of attorney, legal guardianship of children (not addressing the adoption issue specifically here). However, I am all about freedom of religion too, so if you want to have a marriage, go right ahead. But that in no way should give the "special priviledges" it currently does.

And I realize I am bucking thousands of years of tradition here, but can't we evolve, ever?


  • Members
  • 4 posts
Now that bush is elected for a second term, same sex marriage is definitely on its way to getting banned. Anyone have a clue what we can do to stop it,,if anything at all?


  • Members
  • 162 posts
I am probably one of the only lesbians here who will admit that I actually favor civil union over legal marriage. I'm not saying that others should not get married if they want to, but for me marriage in the sense of heterosexual marriage is nothing but a huge prom and the entitlement to share debt for the rest of your lives to me. Does anyone else feel the same or agree with some parts?


  • Members
  • 4 posts
I agree with some parts. But I also believe that people have their own ideas of a "marriage/wedding" It doesnt have to be the typical hetero wedding. It's whatever you want it to be. You create it. It doesn't have to be a traditional wedding.


  • Members
  • 3 posts
Well, I've just now put off my intellectual sackcloth and ashes over Bush's re-election enough to be able to think again. I'm all for gay and lesbian marriages but, unless they're recognized by the government, they don't really up the stakes in the relationship which is, I think, what's missing from our culture. I see a lot of people practicing sexual nomadism--I'm not talking about sleeping with anything that moves, I'm talking about serial monogamy in most cases. I've thought a lot about what causes that, and it seems to me that it's a lack of something that grounds the two lives together--shared property, a child, a legal bond, whatever. I can profess my undying love and commitment to a woman today, in front of all our friends and the members of our families who aren't scandalized, and move out tomorrow, taking the money we had in our joint account with me. She might get it back, but she's going to have to go through all kinds of hell to do it. Don't get me wrong, I believe in falling in love and staying together through thick and thin, and I believe we are at least as capable of that as the heterosexual community. I think our community is at a disadvantage in doing it unless the government officially recognizes our unions, marriages, whatever you want to call them. The current system encourages a somewhat lackadaisical attitude toward serious relationships. I don't think it matters so much what you call them, and I don't really care if there's a religious aspect to the recognition; the legal recognition of unions between same-sex partners is really the bottom line.


  • Members
  • 43 posts

well, since I am married to a man, I think I will add a twist to this...

I concur with bluelegume 100%. We didn't want to get married, were happy with the arrangements as they were, partly because we feel that marriage (institution of) is a bourgeousie arrangement, and partly because of the hassles over debt, property -- because we are a blended family, the whole marital property thing can get a tad tricky, so we had to pay extra money for post-nupt, etc... --

but we finally were in a situation with insurance, and the kids...and I found that common law marriages don't provide the protection for women (not that traditional marriages provide that much either) in case of death of spouse, etc...but the insurance company made you go through all these hoops and red tape if common law, and basically it boiled down to unless you're married, the children couldn't get coverage (step children especially)... so,

yes, I am adament that marriage should be a right for everyone (because of the legal recognition, etc and because its a right granted to heterosexuals so do deny it to homosexuals is discriminatory).

And especially because of the legal ramifications, such as power of attorney, living wills, death of spouse/partner {really tricky if children are involved, as to who gets custody, etc), inheritance (take for example, lets say a bi woman gets divorced, and then is in a lesbian union, long term committment, and then, lets say her partner dies...relatives then would have the right to protest, like inheritance and if there are no civil /legal protections, what then???

So, its more than just the union of two people, when you are young you really don't think about these things but when you are faced with them, its a whole other ballgame.

And, besides that, the laws against marriages between homosexuals, are really, an extension of patriarchial laws that discriminate against All women, when you think about it...because marriage is set up really to benefit men...now, you may think, how is this connected...well, see, how to explain...well its like this, if government can dictate to us who we marry (control over sexuality) then, really, government is also dictating to us what our roles in life should be, etc etc...and for women, we know that means, traditional patriarchial gender roles...

so yea, I do believe in gay marriages and I do fight for them. And if you think that government doesn't want to control our sexuality, then I would suggest, take a look at the Alabama law that was passed that stores that sell sex toys, can be fined mega amounts of dollars...basically trying to outlaw sex toys.

Whats next, making masturbation illegal? I really wouldn't put it past some of the right wing extremists out there to propose such as stupid measure...it really does boil down to controlling a persons (particularly women) sexuality... and as far as I am concerned, no one has that right to control our/your sexuality (excluding incest of course, child rape, etc...) but you --

therefore, to the US government, hands off our bodies and hands off our relationships, who we choose to sleep with, love, marry is Our business, our choice, not the governments choice.

In solidarity, love and rage,

"Both the oppressed classes, women and the immediate producers, must understand that their emancipation will come from themselves. Women will find allies in the better sort of men, But the one has nothing to hope from man as a whole" Eleanor Marx

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users