|
LafayetteLady -> RE: N.J. Senate Judiciary Committee approves gay marriage bill (12/8/2009 8:59:46 PM)
|
I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. Women had to fight for the right to vote. It was something that they should have and they got it. But of course many didn't think they had the ability to form an intelligent enough opinion about the candidates, or the issues to be able to vote. Many also thought they would simply vote however their husband told them to.
In NJ, we currently have something called a "civil union." It was SUPPOSED to give gays all the same rights as married people without offending those who got on their religious soap box saying that "marriage" was defined by the bible, torah, etc. and must be between a man and a woman. Problem is that civil unions DON'T give them all the same rights. Many health insurance plans do not recognize civil union partners. Hospitals will frequently deny a civil union partner the rights that married partners have regarding health issues.
There has been more than a significant of scientific research that shows a person doesn't choose to be homosexual. My best friend from college has known since she was in elementary school that she preferred girls over boys. It is not genetic, it is not something that is culturally taught. Children of gay parents don't grow up to be gay because that is what they were taught growing up.
There has been so many of the most ridiculous statements and thoughts regarding homosexuality, it is hard to believe that people can be that ignorant and uneducated to me. People have stated the belief that all homosexuals are pedophiles and will molest children. REGARDLESS of the fact that the statistics regarding pedophiles clearly shows that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males. Men frequently worry that gay men are going to make a pass at them and try to "change" them. The majority of gay men aren't interested in changing straight males, but that doesn't stop those guys from worrying. People have stated the homosexuals are all promiscuous, and just want to have sex, again with no basis in fact.
I have had the honor of knowing gay couples whose relationships have lasted longer than most marriages. If marriage is a "religious" term, then the states shouldn't have the ability to regulate it or create laws about divorce or anything concerning marriage (separation of church and state). The man in California who is passing the petition to have California law ban divorce is trying to make a point. If marriage is so sacred, and needs to be "protected" from people who would sully its purpose, then people shouldn't be able to get divorced. Yes, his petition is tongue in cheek to show how ludicrous Prop 8 is, but it makes a point.
If we are going to say that marriage is about religious right and wrong, let's abolish it from the states control. Let's make everyone have "civil unions." In Germany, couple have two ceremonies, a civil one and a religious one. Why not do something similar to keep those people who think it is all about religion happy? How about if the states no longer recognize marriages who only had a religious ceremony? How about if we tell them their partnership no longer has any legal protection because it is not a legal partnership if they didn't also have the non denominational civil ceremony performed. The only way they can "divorce" is through their religious leaders. No equitable distribution or support that is legally binding in the courts. When their partner becomes ill, the other spouse can't make any decisions about what needs to be done because they have no legal authority to do so.
Here within the BDSM community there are many who believe their "collars" are more binding than that "wedding ring." Perhaps for them it is psychologically. But legally, that collar holds no power. Legally, if all you have is a collar, you are in the same position as gay partners. Sure you can create many legal documents that offer some protection, such as advanced directives, powers of attorney, wills, etc. But you will never be recognized as "next of kin."
The bottom line (which so many here should be able to appreciate) is that it is no easy task to find that special person to spend your life with. Whenever it happens, everyone should rejoice that those people have found each other, and those people should have the ability LEGALLY to share their lives in the way they see fit. For those who don't like it, it doesn't affect your life. It doesn't take anything away from what you have. People within the BDSM community would like the world "at large" to accept the lifestyles that they have chosen, how could they then turn around and tell others that their lifestyle should not be accepted?
|
|
|
|
