An Open Letter in Support of Marriage Equality

First of all, BS on that whole health care garbage. If the patient wants their partner to be in on their health care, they can be, it's called the patient bill of rights, or the proxy. I've worked in hospitals, and i've NEVER seen anyone denied access to their partner. I worked in a Catholic hospital that was employed by a majority of gays. I've lived next door to gays who also owned their own homes.

Now, why am I NOT for same sex marriage? Because marriage is between a man and a woman, plain and simple.
If gays are "born that way" or as they like to say......"God made us this way".....then that is God's way of saying, fine,,,,,but you can't marry and you can't have children.

To have a child, one must copulate with the opposite sex, plain and simple.

Now, let all you homophobes start bashing me.

BTW,,,,homophobe translates 2 ways.....one....being afraid of man

two, being afraid of things that are similiar and one.

Enough already, mosr of us are just "gayed" out.

It may be that it matters where you are, but in Georgia I assure you that the partner does not have the right to make life and death decisions about their partner. My friend has already been denied that right once. Luckily, her partner survived.

As for your other statement..that is your opinion, based on your belief, and of course, you are free not to sign the letter. I posted it specifically to groups which were interested in social justice and in changing the world. I assume they are not "gayed out." That you came across it and decided to read it would seem to indicate that neither are you. But that was your choice, and it was your choice to take the time to comment.

Marriage for gay partners is very important. I have a few gay friends and they all have been in long relationships. I hope that they are able to get married one day and feel the love and security that I have for 18 years.

"To have a child, one must copulate with the opposite sex, plain and simple."

True, but to build a happy family you need to start with love. Regardless of your anatomical parts.

I appreciate your opinion , but I do not believe in gay marriage at all. You can write up a medical power of attorney, have it notarized and it is legal. If you think that something may happen in the future, a breakup. You cant title it a revokable medical POA. This does not give that person full Attorney in fact POA. but does let them have a say so over your life or death decisions, especially if you have no children, parents, siblings that you want to make the decision for you.

This is a state issue, not a Constitutional one. Donald covered it pretty well.

The letter is to state governors.

Thanks for sharing this. I signed. The idea that marriage should only be between a man a woman is clearly a religious/spiritual one. If we allow religious beliefs to undermine our laws, this will not be the only issue at stake. The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to guarantee equality, making this a national issue, not just a state issue. Today, you might believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not too long ago, people thought marriage was only between a man and a woman of the same race. One day we will see full equality in marriage, just like today their is more equality in marriage than their was early in the twentieth century.

I have no problem with anyone having full and equal marriage rights. I have no idea why some show such a disdain for it and consider it something extra as if it would take away from rights they have.

To me it is an unfair stigma to deny insurance benifits and social security benifits to some due to their sexual orientation. Its as if it is saying you have a right to everything as long as you fit this mold we create for all.

It is a shame that so many feel threatened by the idea of civil marriage. It does not need to be recognized by any church, that is a different issue of faith. When people are committed to each other, and to the children in their household (however they came to be there), then society should honor that decision. There are people who are married that don't have kids, don't love each other, abuse their kids and/or partners - to deny a class of people the right to form a union because they are different from you and you don't understand them does not seem very Christian to me. The passion that is wasted fighting against the rights of people to declare their love for another could be put to much greater use making the world a better place.

Just Stopping By to Leave You Some Points Durin Triple Points Week...Hope it Helps! If You Get The Chance Please Return The Favor Plz. All Your content is Great Thanx for Sharing! Also You Are Our Featured Member on My group ~Help Me Help You For Points & Cash~

I believe that any behavior is dangerous and forbidden if its practice by all humanity will lead to its destruction.

"To have a child, one must copulate with the opposite sex, plain and simple."

ANOTHER WAY TO HAVE A CHILD, BESIDES "COPULATING"...........

I think Cindy means "Reproduction" Berf. If there wasn't reproduction, there wouldn't be adoption.

"Now, why am I NOT for same sex marriage? Because marriage is between a man and a woman, plain and simple.
If gays are "born that way" or as they like to say......"God made us this way".....then that is God's way of saying, fine,,,,,but you can't marry and you can't have children."

No, Mary........."THAT" is what Cindy means...............plain and simple.

agree berf...I do NOT agree with same sex marriages. It is against Gods way period

Emily H.: You say, "if we allow religious beliefs to undermine our laws..." I am sorry to have to point this out to you, but I think you are thinking in a very shallow way. First, our laws haven't been undermined by "religion" or "religious beliefs". Laws are currently being made (not "undermined") that are contrary to the "religious beliefs" of the vast majority of our people. Which in a democracy is hypocritical to say the least. Second, historically speaking, religion has been the only Source for moral and ethical standards. Others have come along and "independent of religion" have pretended to independently become moral and ethical proponents. But that is fallacious because these same "proponents" have been "tainted" by eons of religious tradition that has shaped their views even when they don't admit it. None of us just "arrived" on this planet and developed ideas totally independent of those thousands or millions of years of religious, historical precedent. That is a reality we can't escape.

I wonder how people can be so naive and plainly "stupid" to presume that they somehow have this "modern view" independent of what others before them have struggled, fought, suffered, and sacrificed to make for them. It is our current political environment (not which "party" is in power but the party system itself) that is undermining our laws and ensuring the survival of social dysfunction that makes war itself inevitable. You are allowing a bunch of "sheep" to shout "two legs bad and four legs good", but then, you probably are not aware of what I'm talking about here. But alas, that is the problem of this world at present. People who think so shallowly are digging our "civilization's grave." Please, for God's sake (and for the rest of us including your own) wake up and smell the roses.

I know no one has commented here in a while, but I had to join in even late in the game. I think that equal rights is separate from marriage, gays are perfectly welcome to have all of the rights of any other couple in my opinion. The problem comes from the fact that you are going to lose a fundamental right if gay marriage is mandated. What is that right? It is freedom of choice and freedom of speech. When gay marriage is mandated anyone who doesn't believe in it will automatically be blacklisted, and churches who teach against it will lose their non-profit status. Things that these good people and organizations are doing will come to an end because they won't be able to operate anymore, plus they will be forced to override their conscience. For an example see the Catholic Charities no longer placing children for adoption because the UK was going to force them to place children with gay couples. Equal rights are such that we should be able to choose for ourselves what we believe and live accordingly, the USA was founded on the fundamental right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. These things will be easily undermined when a mandate goes out that you must override your beliefs (which are your source of life, liberty and happiness) so that a few people can be 'married'.

Unbelievable that in the 21st century there should still be so much ignorance, narrow mindedness and bigotry in a country that purports itself to be a leader in the world when it comes to liberty and freedoms. I remember a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. The more I read from the neo-conservative religious right, the more I think that religiosity as it pertains to the persecution of those who believe otherwise should be classified as a mental illness. Granting the right to marry to any two human beings who love each other in no way threatens any other two human beings who also cherish their right to enjoy the blessings that come from the institution of marriage. To believe anything else is to be a conduit of fear based hate. Broaden your horizons. Open your mind. Once you try it you will stand in amazement at the ignorance you once espoused.

Dan, be careful going down that road. Hate does not enter this debate -- PERIOD! That is, with respect, an ignorant assumption on your part. I debate this issue with my gay friends all the time and they are not united on the issue either. Some gay people are totally against the idea of gay marriage.

What polls overwhelmingly show is the American people are willing to offer gay couples a compromise with a civil union, which affords many of the benefits of marriage. Many gay couples don't want to compromise on this, even though it accomplishes what they say they want.

No, it doesn't accomplish what they say they want. What they say they want is to be married, to make a commitment to each other in the same way other couples in love can, and not to have to compromise with a civil union.

Marriage equality is a worthy goal, Rhetta. Some people just don't get it. I agree with Dan Crilly. Broaden your horizons and open your mind. Gays and lesbians are busy living their lives and are hardly disturbing anyone's life. It is simply wrong that heterosexual couples benefit so greatly just for being heterosexual. Gays and lesbians pay taxes, too. What's right is right.

Just to clarify, in case it got lost in all of this: I am 100 percent in favor of marriage equality. I posted the petition in hopes that people who felt the same would sign it.

I believe that no government has the right to regulate the private lives of citizens in any way, and no government has the right to decide who can bond with whom in this world.

I'm not going to allow anyone to define my boundaries for me or label me. I'm not a box -- I don't have sides. I'm not restricted, because I don't agree with you. That is a Church Lady Superiority Dance. Sorry, the argument doesn't work. It's an attempt to put me on the defensive or feel like something is wrong with me.

Civil unions acocmplish the same goal. If I'm wrong, someone point out the deficiencies.

The Constitution does not grant marriage as a right to ANYONE -- regardless of orientation. Marriage is not a right. Health care is not a right. Food is not a right. Progressives need to get this, please. If you want these as rights, then you should propose a new convention and good luck with that.

The Constitution should not have anything to do with marriage. The Constitution should not have the ability to say what is a right when it comes to one's personal life, one's body, or one's religion.

It doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about marriage. So, you got your wish there, Rhetta. I'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with a civil union? Is it just a matter of semantics? I really fear that if you don't accept that, you will get neither a civil union or marriage.

Marriage is the only acceptable construct as long as it is for heterosexuals only. That is rank discrimination, Brook. It isn't about semantics at all. It's about equality in the eyes of the law. It takes a lot of gall for smart people to play dumb and then hide behind an argument that doesn't hold any water. No one is putting you on the defensive. It is simply wrong that all of the benefits that come with marriage are for heterosexual couples, only.

It's wrong according to who, Joe? You use the same arguments the North American Man Boy Love Association uses. Okay, so we should allow legal adults to marry a 17-year-old, according to you. It's wrong according to polygamists that see nothing wrong with a man wanting to marry 3 different women. Why shouldn't they derive the benefits that only heterosexuals get? You think gay couples are the only ones demanding "their rights" with regard to marriage?

Again, this is not bigotry. It is simply drawing a line and defining what marriage is in our society -- and the majority of Americans back this definition. When a minority tries to impose their will on the majority -- that is tyranny. I'm sorry if a minority of homosexual individuals don't like it -- and we know this is a tiny minority from the small number of marriage licenses approved in MA, Spain, and other places where homosexual marriage has been legalized. They are a minority of a minority. The majority of Americans at this time do not want gay marriage -- we've offered a compromise, and that is as far as we are willing to go on this issue. Why can't they accept a compromise that offers them the benefits they are seeking?

Why didn't black people accept "seperate but equal?"

That's what I keep hearing in this argument.

I believe that as long as people are of age and not being forced into anything, frankly, whatever arrangement they want to make is nobody else's business , really.

You certainly can do what you want and nobody is stopping you, Rhetta. It is a free country. However, when you make your arrangement public, then it is the states business.

I'm still waiting to hear what objective the civil union won't accomplish for you.

Brook,

You are not being honest in this discussion. You are more interested in finding fault. I'll say this once and only once: Gays and lesbians do not enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals and that is simply wrong.

Coming from somone who NEVER answers direct questions, Joe. Enough said.

There is no fault to find here. Civil unions are provided for many different situations, including heterosexual couples who don't really want to be married in the eyes of the law. Siblings can also use them to pass on certain benefits. I've asked the question 3 times now and no one has provided any evidence that civil unions cannot give gay couples what they say they want.

Brook, since I do not have the time to do the research and write the article to answer you definitively, I am going to quote from Kathy Belge, who has been a lesbian activist for 20 years and is most knowledgable of these things, and who writes for About.com:

"What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side. "

There, does that explain a bit?

Rhetta, federal recognition of civil unions will take care of all of these issues. Blanket recognition of the union makes it viable in all states. That's the only step that needs to be taken here. There will still be some resistance, but a civil union law could get done -- the problem is the gay and lesbian lobby doesn't want it to pass. The majority of Americans support the Defense Of Marriage Act, and frankly it's somewhat awkward to define a married gay couple -- since there really is no husband and wife union. Again I make the point that if you're not willing to compromise here and get what you say you want (just not in the exact way you want it) you're going to come up empty.

Rhetta, thank you for being an ally and understanding and supporting marriage equality. Please take a look at this article I just wrote, and join me in making a statement and taking a stand by participating in the virtual march by changing your profile picture!

Thanks much!

Good post and of course I agree since my daughter is a lesbian.