marriage equality in California

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think the debate that Irvine and Nathan have going is fascinating. You both have intelligent and well thought out points of view. It does bother me, however, that we as a nation are still arguing over whether or not certain people should be allowed to get married in a country that guarantees freedom and equality to all of its citizens.
 
i do think it's an interesting springboard into the topic of what is marriage "for" and what is it supposed to "do" in our society.

i think if we answer these fundamental questions, or at least understand them better, we'll see even less of a basis for discrimination.
 
Irvine511 said:




i appreciate the constructive approach, but this does feel like a bit of a dodge.

Not really. Marriage is tied to monogamy, which civil unions don't exactly promote. (They don't lend themselves to a "death do us part" mentality.) I would hate for couples -- opposite-sex or same-sex -- who have been together for three months and have no intention of making a go of it to register as civil partners and automatically get the same kind of "incentives" that my wife and I, who have made committments to each other and intend to see them through, do. So at that level, I'd like marriage to be a little more iron-clad, and rather than making it harder for people to get divorced, which I don't think is appropriate, I'd like to see it harder for people to get married.

So on one hand, I'm probably for gay marriage over civil unions, as I think it promotes monogamy among same-sex couples and certainly provides a more stable environment for children to thrive in. At the same time, my friends who are gay and are in long-term monogamous relationships don't seem to need the "M" status to define their relationship either way (or sort out their finances -- a good will covers a lot of ground). I'm thinking about my friends Mike & Frank and Stephen & Brian in particular here, whose monogamy has proven itself over time and is self-chosen as opposed to government-defined.

So when I say that your desire promotes dialogue and conversation, I genuinely mean that, without being able to say more because it's a multi-faceted issue and I'm not sure where I land. But this is part of a larger cultural conversation that we should have. You and Memphis wanting to get married definitely changes the conversation and the definitions. I'm probably against civil unions for the reasons outlined above, but I think any talk of gay marriage should probably be part of a larger re-think of what marriage is and should be.
 
Last edited:
U2isthebest said:
I think the debate that Irvine and Nathan have going is fascinating. You both have intelligent and well thought out points of view. It does bother me, however, that we as a nation are still arguing over whether or not certain people should be allowed to get married in a country that guarantees freedom and equality to all of its citizens.

I appreciate the affirmation, though I think in this thread Irvine and I are less debating and more discussing.

And I think it's healthy to be having these discussions about what marriage is and what it should be. Vigorous debate is probably better than silent approval. An ongoing national conversation about what marriage means is helpful as we think more deeply about issues like family and sexuality and try to chart a course of action. (Even though there are those unhelpful few in the "God Hates Fags" crowd whose vitriol is unhelpful. But God remembers what they've said...and dare I say it, knows where their hatred will ultimately send them.)
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:

and i can't think of a more "separate but equal" institution than civil unions.

Irvine511 said:

and i can't think of a more "separate but equal" institution than civil unions.

Irvine511 said:

and i can't think of a more "separate but equal" institution than civil unions.

Irvine511 said:

and i can't think of a more "separate but equal" institution than civil unions.

Irvine511 said:

and i can't think of a more "separate but equal" institution than civil unions.


I don't know why something that was wrong 45 years ago is somehow acceptable today. :sigh:
 
nathan1977 said:


Not really. Marriage is tied to monogamy, which civil unions don't exactly promote. (They don't lend themselves to a "death do us part" mentality.) I would hate for couples -- opposite-sex or same-sex -- who have been together for three months and have no intention of making a go of it to register as civil partners and automatically get the same kind of "incentives" that my wife and I, who have made committments to each other and intend to see them through, do. So at that level, I'd like marriage to be a little more iron-clad, and rather than making it harder for people to get divorced, which I don't think is appropriate, I'd like to see it harder for people to get married.

So on one hand, I'm probably for gay marriage over civil unions, as I think it promotes monogamy among same-sex couples and certainly provides a more stable environment for children to thrive in. At the same time, my friends who are gay and are in long-term monogamous relationships don't seem to need the "M" status to define their relationship either way (or sort out their finances -- a good will covers a lot of ground). I'm thinking about my friends Mike & Frank and Stephen & Brian in particular here, whose monogamy has proven itself over time and is self-chosen as opposed to government-defined.

DOUBLE STANDARD!!! and incorrect, one needs more than a good will.

nathan1977 said:

So when I say that your desire promotes dialogue and conversation, I genuinely mean that, without being able to say more because it's a multi-faceted issue and I'm not sure where I land. But this is part of a larger cultural conversation that we should have. You and Memphis wanting to get married definitely changes the conversation and the definitions. I'm probably against civil unions for the reasons outlined above, but I think any talk of gay marriage should probably be part of a larger re-think of what marriage is and should be.

I'm really trying to wrap my mind around this, but I can't. What is there to redefine or rethink? This "larger conversation" isn't making any sense, it just sounds like a cop out.
 
On a bit of a tangent but related to the whole idea of equal rights... Whenever we start having the gay marriage discussion, I think about the fact that some fifty-odd years ago, I would not have had the right to marry my boyfriend.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." according to Judge Leon Bazile in 1965. To me, this doesn't sound all that different than the arguments one usually hears against gay marriage. Some sort of appeal to what's "natural" and/or mandated by God. (please note, I'm not saying that this is being put forward by anyone in this thread only that this has been a common argument against extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians).

Today, I don't know of any rational person who would argue that my boyfriend and I should be excluded from the institution of marriage just because he's black and I'm white. And 50 years from now, I think our children will look back and wonder how anyone could have justified discrimination against gays and lesbians. I truly think that history is on the side of human rights and full equality.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
And 50 years from now, I think our children will look back and wonder how anyone could have justified discrimination against gays and lesbians. I truly think that history is on the side of human rights and full equality.

I agree. It's just sad that certain groups never learn from history.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
On a bit of a tangent but related to the whole idea of equal rights... Whenever we start having the gay marriage discussion, I think about the fact that some fifty-odd years ago, I would not have had the right to marry my boyfriend.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." according to Judge Leon Bazile in 1965. To me, this doesn't sound all that different than the arguments one usually hears against gay marriage. Some sort of appeal to what's "natural" and/or mandated by God. (please note, I'm not saying that this is being put forward by anyone in this thread only that this has been a common argument against extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians).

Today, I don't know of any rational person who would argue that my boyfriend and I should be excluded from the institution of marriage just because he's black and I'm white. And 50 years from now, I think our children will look back and wonder how anyone could have justified discrimination against gays and lesbians. I truly think that history is on the side of human rights and full equality.

Brilliant post. I couldn't agree more.:up:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


DOUBLE STANDARD!!! and incorrect, one needs more than a good will.



I'm really trying to wrap my mind around this, but I can't. What is there to redefine or rethink? This "larger conversation" isn't making any sense, it just sounds like a cop out.

Tell me, BVS, does everyone you disagree with look like a nail to you?

I didn't say a good will solves everything. I said it covers a lot of ground.
 
nathan1977 said:


Tell me, BVS, does everyone you disagree with look like a nail to you?

Not at all. In fact I was holding back with that response.

nathan1977 said:

I didn't say a good will solves everything. I said it covers a lot of ground.

"Seperate but equal" covered a lot of ground for many folks too.

Why don't you try and answer the question of what this greater conversation of rethinking means?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Not at all. In fact I was holding back with that response.

I guess a little civility never hurt anyone. Glad to have yours.

Why don't you try and answer the question of what this greater conversation of rethinking means?

I think I've done a pretty good job of summing up my thoughts on the subject of monogamy and its place in society, as well as the issues I've raised -- and in a constructive manner.

But I guess, as with my ultra-Right friends who can't fathom that I'd even consider gay marriage as a legit option, there are people on the far Left who think I'm an idiot too. Happy to oblige, BVS, happy to oblige.
 
martha said:
It's interesting that so many straight men see gay marriage as a way extend the discussion of what marriage is and should be, rather than a legitimate extension of rights to all adults.

See my earlier question of uncertainty as to whether marriage is a legal right.
 
anitabryant.jpg
 
so ... i've got to go be all gay and get to spinning class, but just one question as it relates to marriage, and is applicable to gay and straight alike: is monogamy the same thing as fidelity?

discuss.
 
nathan1977 said:


I think I've done a pretty good job of summing up my thoughts on the subject of monogamy and its place in society, as well as the issues I've raised -- and in a constructive manner.

Yes you've done a great job explaining your thoughts on the subject of monogamy, but you've completely ignored what this means to this conversation.

Obviously both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be monogamous, but why do only heterosexuals deserve the rights of marriage for making that commitment? That you've completely ignored.

nathan1977 said:

But I guess, as with my ultra-Right friends who can't fathom that I'd even consider gay marriage as a legit option, there are people on the far Left who think I'm an idiot too. Happy to oblige, BVS, happy to oblige.

Little defensive eh :eyebrow:? I'm just pointing out that you really seem to be talking around the subject. I think at least your ultra-Right friends are honest with their stance on the subject.
 
nathan1977 said:


See my earlier question of uncertainty as to whether marriage is a legal right.

Why is this usually brought up when gay rights is under discussion?

It seems that rather than extend the right, many people prefer to talk about the legitimacy of marriage itself. Some here have even proposed doing away with marriage altogether rather than let the gays get married. :shrug:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Obviously both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be monogamous, but why do only heterosexuals deserve the rights of marriage for making that commitment? That you've completely ignored.


No, I haven't. I've pointed out that civil unions don't exactly encourage it, which is why I said gay marriage would be good, in that would encourage such monogamy.

Little defensive eh :eyebrow:?

Little obnoxious eh? (Jumping into a conversation by screaming DOUBLE STANDARD!!! doesn't exactly kick things off on a good note. Nor does putting words in my mouth about wills.)
 
Last edited:
martha said:


Why is this usually brought up when gay rights is under discussion?

I'd actually suggest the reverse -- that people who argue for gay rights bring up marriage. Equating marriage "rights" with gay rights is a question mark I have, nothing more or less. I've yet to see someone argue that marriage is a legal right.
 
martha said:


See. This is what I'm talking about. :rolleyes: Let's discuss the legitimacy of marriage rather than the separate but equal system we're under now. That'll make me seem hip without addressing the issue. :happy:

If I wanted to "stay hip," I would stay out of FYM.

Separate but equal had to do with rights to access to schools and resources and education.

Separate but equal does not yet apply to marriage because no one has yet proved that marriage is a RIGHT that should be accessible to all.

And since we're in the middle of conversations about redefining family, redefining cultural perceptions of sexuality, yes, we are indeed talking about redefining marriage. Which is an entirely legitimate conversation.
 
nathan1977 said:
And since we're in the middle of conversations about redefining family, redefining cultural perceptions of sexuality, yes, we are indeed talking about redefining marriage. Which is an entirely legitimate conversation.

Yes, I think that's probably true. One of the advantages of the marital contract historically in most societies would be that it was seen as a means of bringing up kids in a stable environment. (Most of us, for example, will have heard of cases of married couples who are not getting on but opt to stay together 'for the sake of the kids'.) Clearly, with gay couples, this does not necessarily arise.

So it is quite a significant development that is being proposed.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Little defensive eh :eyebrow:? I'm just pointing out that you really seem to be talking around the subject. I think at least your ultra-Right friends are honest with their stance on the subject.

You're never prepared to give any conservative argument the benefit of the doubt, are you?

Conservatives' motives are ALWAYS suspect, aren't they, because, hey, they're probably only making up arguments to hide their deep-seated homophobia and hatred of all things good, liberal, progressive and true.
 
martha said:


Not especially. I got married with absolutely no intention of ever having children. And I made sure of that medically soon after my wedding. Where do I fit in?

Well, of course there are indeed plenty of heterosexual couples who get married without intending to have kids. After they get married, some change their minds and do decide to have kids. Others never have kids, for various reasons.

I'd suggest, however, that the majority of heterosexual couples who never have kids - probably the vast majority - did in fact want to have kids, but found that they couldn't conceive.
 
nathan1977 said:


No, I haven't. I've pointed out that civil unions don't exactly encourage it, which is why I said gay marriage would be good, in that would encourage such monogamy.

BUT, then you further went on to say "don't seem to need the "M" status to define their relationship", and this is where I have the problem. There are many hetero couples who choose not to have "M" define their relationship either, but at least they have the choice. You don't seem to be willing to give anyone else that choice, unless they have "the greater conversation". Which you've failed to define.

Until you define that, we're just running in circles.
 
financeguy said:


Well, of course there are indeed plenty of heterosexual couples who get married without intending to have kids. After they get married, some change their minds and do decide to have kids. Others never have kids, for various reasons.

I'd suggest, however, that the majority of heterosexual couples who never have kids - probably the vast majority - did in fact want to have kids, but found that they couldn't conceive.

But this doesn't matter one bit. It doesn't matter in the biblical definition and it doesn't matter in a legal definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom