Comments on: Dems see opportunity in gay marriage

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:18:57 +0000

>So my point is the same thing goes with telling folks your gay at work!

You’re missing the whole point (probably on purpose).

We aren’t interested in telling someone on the interview that we’re gay. We’re not interested, necessarily, in telling someone at work “out of the blue.” We’re asking to be allowed to share information in *exactly* the *same* *way* as heterosexuals do.

So, if a heterosexual can casually mention, “My wife just called and she’s in the hospital. I need to take the afternoon off,” then we would like to say, “My partner just called and he’s in the hospital. I need to take the afternoon off.”

Right now, in many states, it’s perfectly normal for a heterosexual to say that line and there are no repercussions from it, but it’s legal to fire the gay person for saying it.

Equal ways of living one’s life. Equal treatment. That’s all.

By: Gimme a Ciggie

Gimme a Ciggie — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:02:10 +0000

To the Comment by “Man”
Perversion or not, its about LOVE AND MARRIAGE RIGHTS PAY ATTENTION! Im not in the loop entirely with the politics of this whole thing, but its about people getting DISCRIMANATED and Denied rights, for the “perversion” they were born with! Why should you be allowed to have rights with YOUR PERVERSION and not Gays? F**k off

By: Gimme A Ciggie

Gimme A Ciggie — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:53:37 +0000

I dont know if im out of the loop or not, but cant we just have civil unions WITH extended rights? why do we have to have marriage?? Marriage = high divorce rates!! I wanna keep my man, and I quite frankly marriage is too mainstream, we’re gay! we’re different, why not be happy with Civil Unions with extra benefits? I may be misinformed, but thats how im seein this

By: Man

Man — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:26:52 +0000

If i were to wake up and go out to look for a job and got an interview and lets say the interviewer was a woman. Now at the end of that interview i tell her oh by the way ima heterosexuel, how do you think she might take that,besides the fact that i telling her im a heterosexuel was tottaly not needed to know to get the job or any job for that matter, but wonder whats going through her mind when i told her that. Now sinc she is Human and Humans assume alot all the time, Im betting she think I just made a pass at her yeppers! That doesnt make her heterophobic , that makes her right most likely! Why els would i tell her im heterosexuel unless i was advertising hey im heterosexuel all you women out there in the office and ready to mate woooohooooo! see that would be grounds for termination!! Its called sexuel harrasment! Think it outrageous but gohead try it yourself at work to your female fellow employee and see what happens or perhaps your boss. So my point is the same thing goes with telling folks your gay at work! WHY?!?!? are you hunting for other gays at work? There is no reason for anyone to need to know your gay at work period! Keep sex at home behind closed doors where it belongs! Everyone has a perversion, weather it be called heterosexuel perversion or gay it is a p[erversion not a race of people , and you need to keep your perversions at home behind closed doors where they belong! Nobody is born horney or sexuely active . You remeber that thing called puberty you went through and you can be influenced in what you believe and how you think by the experiences around you during that critical stage! Fact! So in other words to put it bluntly, your perversion does not make you a new race of people just makes ya perverted like all the rest of us, only differenc is you want extra rights for being perverted! NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Keep sex and what ever your perversion is at home sheesh quit making issues out of sexuel prefrences out in public where it doesnt belong and the public wont have issues with you lol! I dont go to work using street slang so you dont go to work using sexuel slang in other words gay slang or talk thank you!

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:36:27 +0000

The reason why opposition to same-sex marriage is high is based on religious beliefs. That whole procreation stance that they use to deny us marriage equality is deeply flawed and doesn’t hold much water. If that is what is at the core of the problem, then the same people have to seriously ask themselves, if they truly believe procreation is the primary reason for marrying, then they would have to support the notion that straight couples who are childless by choice or who can’t procreate should have their marriages annulled and those intending to marry but don’t want children banned also. They can’t have it both ways.

Marriage equality won’t happen in all 50 states unless the Supreme Court currently stacked with republicans intervenes and that’s not going to happen. 30 states have DOMA in place, without Supreme Court intervention, its going to become extremely difficult to overturn in those states. More western European countries will emerge with marriage equality far sooner than we can imagine. We won’t unfortunately.

By: JoeyinCT

JoeyinCT — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:07:05 +0000

It really is a matter of time.
Here in CT, I can get married. I think it will take the New England states moves toward marriage equality to sway the rest of the country slowly, but surely. California will once again allow gay marriage. THAT is just a matter of time.
My generation is widely accepting of the issue. They don’t care if you’re gay, straight, black, white or purple. If you love your significant other, regardless of gender, then why not? Most of the younger generations parents have shown that “traditional marriage” sometimes doesnt work out. The stance that it should be left for one man and one woman is not a deciding factor for my gen. We’re not dumb and can comprehend (well…some anyway) that the ‘one man, one woman’ marriages have increasingly ended in divorce. If it’s going the way of the bible that opponents are striving for, then there is no such thing as divorce. If you are a proponent for “traditional marriage” and you’ve been once, twice divorced and left your spouse for a younger hotter version…then your sadly misled. Based on the pieces of paper written by men who wear dresses and live with eachother in a palace surrounded by fabulous works of art and antiques…divorce doesn’t exist.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too folks.

By the time I’m 30 (we’ve got 6 years), Gay Marriage will be allowed wide-spread throughout this country. The land of the free and the land of opportunity. That’s why we all proud to be tax-paying citizens and to live here to begin with.

By: Peter-Nicholas

Peter-Nicholas — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:58:12 +0000

My partner of 35 years and I feel that at this point we would very much welcome a civil union for ourselves rather than no rights at all. Unfortunatley for us we live in one of those pathetic states where it would never happen as the majority of voters are born-again losers. Approximately 80% of our taxes go to their kids and we get nothing in return for living here. We feel that the Federal Govt must step in and give us and our people civil unions. It is a start, though not full equal rights.

By: MavsFan

MavsFan — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:13:10 +0000

The ol’ “Seperate, But Equal” mindset. Where have I seen that before? I really cannot understand the people that oppose marriage equality, but support civil unions. I mean if their concerns centered around churches being forced to perform same-sex weddings, it’s completely unfounded! Provisions to avoid such conflicts have already been written into the marriage equality bills. It’s about being equal in the eyes of the law. At least the younger generation seems to be dismissing their parents’ archaic beliefs. It’s all a matter of time!

By: Morgan

Morgan — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:27:51 +0000

Marriage equality is much more personal that the political considerations.

This issue is in summary the idea of a couple and its relationship being protected in many ways in the eyes of the local state’s tax laws, laws regarding real and personal property, medical decision making for a partner no longer able to make decisions, right to bury one’s partner, being able to get pass property onto the surviving partner without taxation, social security benefits, the rights of a couple to conduct its most important decisions and to legally exclude a meddling birth family from any claims to anything regarding a relative or to be able to interfere in a couple’s life, etc.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:45:24 +0000

Frankly, while I am a political progressive, I do not believe the issue of marriage equality is a matter of progressives and liberals vs. conservatives. This is an issue of democracy vs. mass or mob rule. I was taught in a relatively conservative school system during the 1950s and 1960s. Our teachers stressed that mere majority rule is mob rule and not democracy. We were taught that democracy is majority rule, yes, but WITH PROTECTIONS FOR THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES and that the majority must not be permitted to deny the rights of minorities. As we continue to work to gain and protect marriage equality rights, we need to stress that denying marriage equality to same-sex couples, regardless of what the majority may believe is a denial of democratic rights.

As for those opposed to marriage equality, whether conservatives or religious or Republicans or Canadian Conservatives or liberals or whatever, we need to say, “If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex.”