Yes, we can call it anything we want. But the IRS doesn’t recognize it, and neither does the federal government. Why should the federal government deny same-sex marriages in Massachusetts the same rights that straight married couples in every state get to take for granted? Particularly when the federal government doesn’t issue marriage licenses in the first place?

“You cant expect equal blessings when you distort the gospel.”

Oh no, not the “gospel” argument again. Worn any blended cloth lately? Come on, ‘fess up… even if you’re wearing a wool/cotton blend, doesn’t Leviticus condemn this?

Does the constitution extend to every one of us, or doesn’t it? And please… no religious justifications for making me a second-class citizen.

“I support civil unions. I think that if two people want to get tax breaks, this is America. If they want to visit their loved on in the hospital, they should be able to do so.”

The federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions, or even same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Why should it recognize heterosexual marriages for tax purposes?

“To me marriage is a religious ceremony. If a religion does not support gay marriage “according to their bible or other holy text, how can the marriage be legal from that religion’s standpoint?”

Aren’t we a republic of laws? Doesn’t that include religious organizations? Are you saying that you don’t recognize civil marriages of any kind unless they are approved of by a religion?

“One problem with the gay rights movement is that they are simply going beyond the law. You have to work within the system, otherwise there is anarchy.”

Substitute “civil” for “gay,” and your statement suddenly looks naive, if not ridiculous.

“The gay community deserves a place at the table”

Why, thank you Massa. You’s a good Massa, yessir.

Get over yourself, bud.

I apologize to anyone who was offended by that “mouth in front of head “remark

Sounded good though…;->

And, while I sympathize with people that have made a commitment to each other that do not get the civil legal rights that a married couple get, I truly do not see why the reality of the country must be changed to accomodate their choice.

Additionally, I am tired of the general idea that to acknowledge an absolute in this world is to be intolerant. Absolutes are simply realities. Rocks are hard, water is wet, gravity is…no matter what you ‘believe’ about it.

Tab A was made to go in Slot B. That is the function, and that is the creation. The fact that you can stick Tab A in many places does not change that simple truth. The fact that in doing so you get your emotional needs that were more healthily denied earlier on, also does not change that simple truth.

For one to acknowledge this reality does not mean one sits in judgement of a person that has chosen to operate outside the reality. But just because someone has chosen to NOT accept reality doesn’t mean the real world must change. Reality simply is, and cannot change. It is all in how you deal with it…which is choice. Life is simpler when you cooperate with reality. I choose to do that.

If you - generic you - choose not to, that is your choice. And the consequences of that choice is your cross to bear, not mine. This is not heartless. This is reality. I feel for you, I sympathize with you, I empathize with you, and I even deeply identify with you. When it came to the crossroads of choosing to embrace reality, or to embrace my compulsion to get my emotional void filled despite reality, I chose reality. Given the choice between the actual, and the imagined, I decided the uphill struggle either way had a better chance of taking if I was working within the framework of reality.

And really…once you acknowledge reality, it is easier to function with reality AND get your needs met. Rather than have a temper tantrum about how unfair it was that gravity kept us down and expend energy to change reality, those with the need to go up found a way to use reality to do so.

If you want equal rights in this world , shouldnt your contributions be equal ?

As a lesbian citizen in this country, I want the same rights as any other citizen and the same responsibilities: legal recognition of my marriage, the same rights of hospital visitation and inheritance and tax filing that heterosexual couples have, the same protections against discrimination in employment and housing that other minorities have. That I have to fight against religious influences in government to have these rights recognized is the travesty. As a citizen, I am supposed to be treated equally under the law. Religion should have nothing to do with law.

As for the question of suing religious establishments to perform same-sex marriages: I am not saying that someone somewhere is not going to try this. However, the majority of us seeking the right of marriage recognition are seeking the legal version of that; not the spiritual version of that. We can arrange the spiritual ceremonies ourselves, with religious leaders who already support us and who actually want to perform the blessings. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is our responsibility to handle the spiritual part ourselves, with supportive and caring clergy, our friends and families around us, sending us into our future with love and joy.

Suing a religious establishment to perform this would be ludicrous. How could any couple start a happy marriage if it was performed under duress by the clergyperson? How could that ceremony be filled with joy at all? It couldn’t. And I, for one, wouldn’t go near a ceremony like that; either as a participant or as a guest.

So I feel that your fears on that point are unfounded. We already have options. There are already churches and temples who are joyfully embracing our community and there are more every day. What we lack is state and federal recognition of our marriages under the law. That is the focus of our activism.

Equal rights? Every guy has the right to marry any girl he wants, as long as they aren’t related or underage; I realize this isn’t what a gay guy wants, but it is equal

You’re not justifying the riots in Watts and South central L.A., are you.
Also I dont care what your sexual preference is, so dont think I am bias by my next statement.
But are you really comparing the suffering of Black americans for the last 200 years to the gay scenario today ? Give me a break.
Also I might add that part of the authors wish for gays to operate within the law was that if you’re going to protest he should not have his right to drive home violated.

Just like African-Americans should have kept operating within the laws of segregation and second-class citizenship - totally valid for their time? Just because something is law does not necessarily make it any less objectively unjust.

As for the allegedly excessive demands, most queer people are only ever asking for the same rights that our straight friends take for granted every day - no more, no less. This is hardly radicalism. You talk of ‘militant supports’ but don’t actually identify any specific examples - can you cite any or were you just jumping to a pre-existing stereotype you have in your mind?

The issue of (apparently) compromising religion and biblical teachings by allowing same-sex couples to marry would be resolved if the institution operated in the same way as France - two distinct ceremonies, one civil and one ceremonial. Same-sex couples could be married, or ‘unionised’ for those ‘uncomfortable’ with the dreaded M word, before the State, with all corresponding rights and responsibilities attached, and if churches did not want to bless that union, so be it.

The US like Australia has a constitutional separation of church and state so law-abiding civil citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian should not be denied civil rights because mainstream churches don’t happen to agree with our orientation or relationships.