Gay marriage?

[Lark]

Yep, like Red I remember well the laws against inter-racial marriages.  It took this country over 100 years to get used to the idea that those weren't something that were going to bring our country to destruction.

The idea of gay marriages, at least as something that should be legalized, is something that is fairly new to the majority of Americans.  It's probably going to be something that takes them awhile to get used to.  One hopes that it will be something much less than 100 years for them to decide that it is, if not a good thing in their view, at least something that doesn't require them to get their knickers in a wad about it.

Frankly I think the GLBT community has made amazing strides in only a few years on this issue and I applaud them for their persistence and their courage.  This is the kind of situation where working through the legal system will eventually achieve them their goals.  Do I wish it would all happen tomorrow?  You bet.  Do I think that this is something that will take years to achieve?  Unfortunately, yes I do.  But as the black citizens of our nation have already proved, change is possible if enough people want it.

-Lark-

[NachtSorcier]

Frankly I think the GLBT community has made amazing strides in only a few years on this issue and I applaud them for their persistence and their courage.  This is the kind of situation where working through the legal system will eventually achieve them their goals.  Do I wish it would all happen tomorrow?  You bet.  Do I think that this is something that will take years to achieve?  Unfortunately, yes I do.  But as the black citizens of our nation have already proved, change is possible if enough people want it.

(If what I say sounds odd, it is because for some reason everytime I try to type an apostrophe, my computer activates the search function; I will look into it.)

You are so right, Lark.  I have noticed that some black people have gotten angry when members of the gay community have compared our struggle to that of the Civil Rights Movement.  While it is true that we are not being blasted with fire hydrants and beaten by the police (usually), I have the feeling that the only reason for that is that violence is less accepted today.  So instead, we are harassed in other ways: Being out can cause us to be fired or turned down from jobs, discharged from the military, or harassed and beaten by civilians, or "gay bashed."  I would not say that our struggle is the exact same as theirs, but ours is a much more covert form of harassment and discrimination.

Fortunately, though, the Gay Rights Movement seems to be moving along more quickly.  On the other hand, we seem to go through long periods of slowness; one could say that the movement started in 1969 after the Stonewall Riots, then a period of immobility, then we marched on Washington in the 1980s, then a period of immobility (I grew up in the 1990s and I cannot recall anything going on in that time), and now in the last few years, gay marriage and the AIDS epidemic have brought it alive again.  Hopefully with groups like the HRC and GLAAD, we will keep moving along instead of growing quiet again for a time.  I have a feeling that the new mellenium has brought something new (and good) along with it.

[Anonymous]

I think that there are some places in America which allow gay marriage legally.

[NachtSorcier]

I think that there are some places in America which allow gay marriage legally.

Only Massachusettes does, and only local residents are allowed to marry there.  Vermont did, but it was abolished.

[Sewa Yoleme]

Vermont did, but it was abolished.

Former Vermonter here. No, gay marriage has never been legal in Vermont. The civil unions law enacted in Vermont in 2000 was passed as a response to the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont requiring that the state grant same-sex couples the same rights and privileges accorded to married couples under the law. And the civil unions law has certainly not been abolished.

A Vermont civil union is nearly identical to a legal marriage, as far as the rights and responsibilities for which state law, not federal law, is responsible are concerned. It grants partners next-of-kin rights and other protections that heterosexual married couples also receive. However, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, civil unions are generally not recognized outside of the state of Vermont in the absence of specific legislation. Opponents of the law have supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in order to prevent obligatory recognition of same-sex couple in other jurisdictions. This means that many of the advantages of marriage, which fall in the federal jurisdiction (joint federal income tax returns, visas and work permits for the foreign partner of a U.S. citizen, etc), are not extended to the partners of a Vermont civil union.

[NachtSorcier]

Sorry, I must have been misinformed.

[Anonymous]

And weren't there some places in America where gay couples could adopt children?

[Sewa Yoleme]

And weren't there some places in America where gay couples could adopt children?

Within the U.S., California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington state, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C. allow adoption by same-sex couples. Florida is the only state that explicitly prohibits adoption by same-sex couples. Mississippi, Oklahoma, Colorado and Utah all make adoption by same-sex couples virtually impossible by only allowing married couples to adopt. However, in many of the states that have bans on adoption by same-sex couples, these same couples are still able to act as foster parents, which makes NO sense at all (if you can foster, why can't you adopt?).

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[Anonymous]

if you can foster, why can't you adopt?

Well, duh, because....oh no, wait - there is no reason that makes sense!!

I'm curious as to why same sex couples can not adopt - if it's the whole "children need a mother and a father" malarky, does this mean women who leave their male partner because he's abusive should give up her children? That a man who's wife dies should give up his child?

Ridiculous!!

Also, can't single people adopt? Or single woman visit a sperm bank?

Now, apologies if that's just crazy talk, I may have got some of my information via TV sitcoms, as this is not an issue that has ever directly affected me, thus I don't know a whole lot about it!!

~Rowena

[Sewa Yoleme]

I'm curious as to why same sex couples can not adopt - if it's the whole "children need a mother and a father" malarky, does this mean women who leave their male partner because he's abusive should give up her children? That a man who's wife dies should give up his child?

No, no, they claim it's the "morals" issue. As in, a loving same-sex couple, because they have an "immoral lifestyle," is not a good role model for impressionable young minds (as if homosexuality is "catching").

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[Shadow]

I'm curious as to why same sex couples can not adopt - if it's the whole "children need a mother and a father" malarky, does this mean women who leave their male partner because he's abusive should give up her children? That a man who's wife dies should give up his child?

No, no, they claim it's the "morals" issue. As in, a loving same-sex couple, because they have an "immoral lifestyle," is not a good role model for impressionable young minds (as if homosexuality is "catching").

.:. Sewa Yoleme

Yep, you'd be amazed.

So many of the people who spout off with this crap actually believe that it is some sort of life style choice and that "exposing" children to it while they are young and mipressionable will lead those children to make the same "choice".

As if anyone in his/her right mind would actually choose a life style that leaves them as open to the ridicule and abuse that so many homosexual people in this country suffer.  I fully believe that it is a genetic difference not a "life style choice".  There are strong, good genetic reasons for having about ten percent of people being homosexual, but I won't hi-jack this thread by turning it into a discussion on the propagation of genetics.  I will, however, say that we see the same percentages in pretty much all social primates, and that from my own observations I fully believe that it is pretty much a mammalian trait across the board.

As for the original question.  I have no problem with two people who are in a commited relationship having the same rights and priviledges as any other couple.  I think the government should keep their noses out of the bedrooms, and, indeed, the households of normal American unless those Americans are mentally ill and need protecting.  Since homosexuality itself is not a mental illness and is not abnormal or immoral, the government, the religous right (or left for that matter), or any other meddling jerks who think they know what is best for everyone else, should just butt out!

I've never understood homophobia.  The only thing I can think of is that those who are so outspoken against homosexuals must not have a firm grasp on their own sexuality.  I'm heterosexual, have been all my life.  It wasn't a lifestyle choice.  I'm just not wired to find other men  physically attractive.  Doesn't bother me that some men do.  I'm not sleeping with them so I don't care about their sexual persuasion.  Since that whole issue is moot I can then move on to see these individuals as such, just individuals.  Then I can decide on the basis of what kind of person they are, not who they are living with, if I wish to associate with them.

[NachtSorcier]

Rock on, Shadow, rock on.