I was part of the 47% that voted No1 I was also one of the great volunteers to help us get that 47% I was there at the organization this year when we found out. I will do all this and more next year!!! I will not stop until we have won this battle. Civil rights are what this nation has been fighting for ever since it started. We will not end until we have Civil rights for all. Thank you for your video.
Yet again, ZJ articulates with wisdom and style what so many of us know to be true. I am so proud of 47% of Maine's voters, and so disappointed in the rest.
I remember, at the information desk I work at... a man from Brazil just striking up a conversation with me. At some point another man came up to him and he presented him as his husband. I congratulate them, sincerely. I don't see anything wrong with it. The look in each others eyes, love and happiness was awesome. I can't understand why there's a *group* of people that can't spend their life with their significant other because a bunch of others say they can't. WTF?
If you look back, very similar arguments used to be used against interracial marriage as well. "It's unnatural", "It's against the Bible/God", "Think of the children". The last one is my personal favourite when gay couples try to adopt or otherwise have their own children. You are absolutely right. A human being should not have to settle for anything less then equality.
"you don't change public policy for a few people." Yes, we do. We have in the past and continue to do so. Recognition and protection of minority rights is an essential part of our society. "you change for the betterment of society." Protecting minority rights betters society.
That being in the confined definition of the tyranny of a majority, oh happy bliss. I wish all Yes voters could feel as happy as I do at this piece of news.
To best of our knowledge, marriage came about as a way for men to lay claim to women and take them as their property. Marriage documents were the equivalent of signing over property with legal documentation of the transaction. That's the most well-supported idea of what marriage originally entailed.
It really puts in into perspective when you consider that by passing this law, society is telling people they should be ashamed of wanting to get married to someone they love just because of who they are.
I just love it when people can only respond by threatening me with nonexistence people and nonexistent places. Makes it that much easier to prove my point.
You're right, FP. This really isn't a battle over gay rights, stem cell research, abortion rights, teaching evolution, etc. It is *all about* a cultural battle for the superiority of "reason and rationality" over dogmatic beliefs. We might might as well skip all of these side-issues and move to the main event.
I'm straight and still feel bad about this. Bigotry for any reason is just sad. They will never be able to "prove" anything of the sort yet they still think it is ok to say it any way.
From here, then, I do not want marriage equality out of jealousy or covetousness. Instead, I laid out the rights that I need in order to ensure the life I build with my husband and the family I will inevitably raise are protected, safe, and secure. I refuse to accept that if something should happen to him, I cannot file him on my medical insurance, I cannot visit him in the hospital. If something to me, that he cannot benefit from spousal inheritance without familial objection.
Agreed. It's the respect that comes with the word "marriage". "Separate but equal" is not acceptable. It's like saying a person who completes the necessary requirements to be a neurosurgeon can only be a nurse because of something trivial like having blue eyes. You can wear contacts, but you'll always have blue eyes. And you can be fully qualified and professional, but we won't give you a PhD. You can love someone and have the same benefits, but we won't call it "marriage".
"Marriage is just a word, you could get a partnership agreement without calling it marriage." Marriage is a legal binding. Civil unions are only recognized on a state level in a very small number of states. Marriage isn't just a word, it's a legal process, and it indeed IS more than just a partnership agreement.
Disappointing and sad - terribly, terribly sad. I tried to have this conversation with young woman (who was happy last year when Prop 8 passed in CA) who wanted me to be happy for her when she got engaged last week... I sincerely congratulated her; but she could not understand my chagrin.
"BUT gays aren't pushing for that, they want the "Marriage"" A lesbian friend explained this to me today and it's so obvious that I'm ashamed to say I didn't consider it. What they *want* is the exact same rights that everyone else has. Marriage (whatever you or I might think of it) is important to a lot of people. I really *means* something to be able to say "here's my husband who I love deeply and will always honor in our marriage". Fucking give it to everyone!
I d'know...the problem is that what people WANT is "marriage", the word as much as the concept. It's so ingrained in our culture, there'z something enchanting about it. I'd love to introduce my spouse as my wife, and her me...assuming I had one, of course. I mean, yeah...part of the god-botherers' fears are right: we DO want in their exclusive club. Maybe not THEIRS specifically, but we want MARRIAGE, not something "almost as good".
Showers of your crimson blood Seep into a nation calling up a flood Of narrow minds who legislate Thinly veiled intolerance Bigotry and hate But they tortured and burned you They beat you and they tied you They left you cold and breathing For love they crucified you I can't forget hard as I try This silhouette against the sky
Yeah, there is a difference here. We're not the ones who have to pretend our relationships somehow have a stamp of approval from the all-powerful creator of the universe.
Good for you ZJ. I find it amazing how often I get called a "fag" when I'm doing nothing but stand up for gay rights. I'm not even a homosexual, but most of the time I just let them think I am gay. As if my being straight would somehow make what I say more "valid." It really is apalling to see the psychology behind this line of thought in action again and again. Stay strong ZJ, and stay smart :).
@kmsoileau "The fact that the Supreme Court is ever overturned is prima facie evidence that they are not a reliable authority for what is a right." Because if you've ever been wrong, there is zero possibility that you could ever progress to being less wrong. So let's all make sure and never update our positions about anything. "...the Supreme Court having a variable definition of rights." It comes with the variable understanding of rights inherent to historical progress.
Dhoward, aside from being blatantly false, the very idea is absurd: infertile people are not banned from getting married, sterile people are not banned from getting married. And if that were to ever happen, all of society would be horrified that the government would ever be corrupt enough to do that to it's citizens.
Conservatives can say all they want that "activist judges" and "Liberal government leaders" are the only ones who wanted same-sex marriage, but take New Hampshire, for example, the state where I'm from. Governor Lynch is very open to most things, except for same-sex marriage and voiced this himself on a few occasions. And the heat he came under was tremendous from both sides of the debate. Still he decided in favour of equality, and still tried to reach compromise with the church.
There are plenty of jurisdictions where marriage is defined as including gay couples. Even some dictionaries define it that way. Marriage is whatever we define it as. People make substance-free assertions like "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman". And we ask, why? They are seemingly unable to answer that.
It sucks.... but I have faith ZJ! We've come this far! The younger generations are more open minded and accepting. Once the older generations die off and more young people are able to vote, we'll have equality for all. I'm sure of it.
You're correct. Assault is a crime despite the perpetrator or the victim, but there are still varying levels of assault and appropriate punishments for each. In this lengthy discourse, I fail to see what assault has to do with this...
ZJ, I feel the same way. When I saw the news about Maine I was completely outraged. The religious right and social conservatives are among the most hateful group I've encountered. I honestly think they hate freedom and equality.
I wish this could be taken to the supreme court already. History shows that is what MUST happen when the majority of the population is ignorant. Did the people vote to end slavery?
I listed some of the rights and liberties afforded to couples by way of civil marriage. Civil marriage is not a social recognition. It is a legal agreement (marriage license). It affords rights and liberties by accepting responsibilities. Being as we are, there is NO logical reason our government should deny these rights based on our sexual orientation. To think otherwise is encouraging of bigotry, theocracy, segregation, subjugation, or apartheid.
All of us must live our lives in this world today, and not in the world as it may be tomorrow. Every couple has to decide what is more important, their pride and principals or their love and marriage. If a couple is not married by now, they most likely have more pride than love for each other.
I'm a guy, but I don't really mind being referred to by either pronoun, as long as it's not "it". I appreciate that you asked; it's not often that people are so courteous.
Lastly, Dh, there is a current movement recognizing this as a pure civil rights issue. To accommodate, society MUST change. It is foolish for us to say that no one will be impacted by this. Laws will be expanded, regulations will be diminished, and equality will be had. Changes will be made and our society will transform. However, as a civil rights issue, the opinion of the majority does not hold merit. They will and are going to yield in order for equality to be had.
As I believe I mentioned earlier, civil marriage is required to be inclusive. Domestic partnerships or civil unions are not satisfactory since laws governing those two structures vary from state to state. A civil union in one state is not equivalent to a civil union in another. It is much more acceptable to establish an inclusive and equal rather than a separate but equal resolution in order to prevent further apartheid and segregation from plaguing our society.
I do have the benefit of living in MA, where I can get married. However, I cannot guarantee that work will require we move to a state where my marriage is not recognized (DOMA) and cannot guarantee that all of my hard work to build a successful and happy life together will not be ruined the moment something happens to either one of us because we are not given rights and recognition by all but five state and federal governments. We are, in their eyes, second class, undeserving, less than.
Yep. It's why courts can and do change the law - as it *should* be. Majorities can never be an excuse for derailing basic rights. Maybe we need to change the law to require 2/3 to overturn a court decision.
I am comforted that it was such a close vote, yet still disappointed on the outcome. Hopefully slowly we will be able to open the minds of many and that although some may disagree with us, with an open mind they may be able to tolerate such a disagreement, whether ethical or not.
Kit, While the accomplishment in Washington State is phenomenal and a great stride forward, my concern would be once anyone who has a civil union in Washington State moves elsewhere, to another state where that civil union is defined with different and fewer rights. Marriage, being universal in rights across all states, is the easiest and most inclusive method for recognizing equal treatment under the law, rather than rules of segregation and apartheid.
Oh, and this was great discourse, Dh. Much respect to you for remaining civil, albeit disagreeing with me. I do not hesitate and am not faltering: Marriage equality will happen within the next decade at a national level. As it is, I think we should conclude this discourse. I must go. Have a great weekend.
I like how ZJ puts the whole thing on a very personal level. Really, if marriages were based solely on the discretion of the Bible, half of the married population would have their marriages discredited. Gay marriage IS coming! It'll take about another decade or so, but it is indeed coming. The margins are getting slimmer and slimmer still. If you are around 50 years old are younger, you will probably live to see it.
"Acceptance is not a Constitutional right." Plenty of heterosexuals get married, when you or others may not "accept" their marriage for one reason or another. But that doesn't mean you get to hold a referendum on whether or not they can get married. Constitutional rights mean the freedom to do things that people might disagree with.
I cannot admit that. The rights, benefits, and protections offered to married couples from our government are done partly on my tax dollars. Simply because I am gay does not mean that the government should treat me differently and have me pay MUCH more to exist in a stable and loving household with my husband. I am not jealous of straight couples, but recognize that I am placed in an unstable situation not being able to protect my family for sake of an antiquated ideal as traditional marriage
Nobody is being forced to "accept" anything. That's why it doesn't matter what they "want" or "don't want". Other people can get married regardless of what you think of that. And you don't get to veto their marriages, because it doesn't concern you and it doesn't matter whether you "accept it" or not.
You are correct. Adoption is really a different issue than the topic of this video. Still, I recognize adoption as a very significant issue for equal treatment. Knowing how many children in this world remain in foster care or orphanages waiting to be adopted by a parent or parents, it can be deemed immoral to allow a child to remain in a fruitless living situation rather than being adopted into a capable household, same-gender, heterosexual, or single parent.
I knew someone would mention this and you are right. There are some incentives to getting married for financial reasons and a few others. Getting married by the court is fine by me but it's just the religious ritual acts that I was mainly referring to and that so many people end up paying thousands of dollars to end up saying "I Do" when it should already have been understood between the couple that they want to be with each other as long as possible. I know my view sucks to many but it's mine.
Yes! I watched ZJ's vid and was going to say, "Sorry, ZJ". And I still do. But your comment was the first below the video and that, along with the end of the video, made me think - This is far from over. It's just a matter of time (as frustrating and disheartening as I know this is). Good for Washington!
Is anyone else out there wondering why this issue is a ballot issue? It seems to me that if there's a question as to the constitutionality of same-sex marriage that it is a matter for our courts, not our ballot boxes. I have a fundamental problem with the prospect of "voting" on who gets first class citizen ship and who doesn't.
I'm sorry. Truly, deeply sorry. I cried this morning when I heard the news. I am officially ashamed of the state in which I live. On the plus side, the vote was close, and the organization that sponsored the No side has publicly stated that they won't stop fighting. I'll be there with them. I have no use for bigotry, ignorance and hatred.
Acdc, don't forget the civil rights that come along with it that transcend state and national borders. Foreign countries don't recognize state domestic partnerships from the US. Other states that allow open border marriage (NYS, for example), but do not allow same-gender marriage define their domestic partnerships or civil unions differently. Equal rights can only come with civil marriage at a national or even international level.
"A marriage is for a male and female by definition." This is no more substantial of an argument than "it is because it is". As if you expect people to say "Oh, okay, I get it."
This is about as meaningful as saying "What do you believe was wrong with the last 2000 years of civilization when slavery was an accepted practice? Why were they not as enlightened as you?" Well, how would you answer that?
I understand why marriage is important for people. It's the reasons of why people go through the ceremony process. It's a religious ritual that doesn't suit me. The ceremony/ritual is a tool to help couples feel that they have cemented their love and bond for the rest of their lives. For me, as long as my partner and I understand our undying love and commitment to each other is real then that's all we need.
You are completely right. Of course it is discriminatory. My point was, if people can legally get married by traveling to another state, but chose not. Then in my view, they probably do not want to get married.
If we can have the same rights, then what need is there to separate them into different legal institutions? And if they have to be segregated, how can they be said to be equal? Nobody's marriage is going to "change" when gay people get married.
Hate crimes bill: As I'm not mistaken, this bill was only extended, not created. It now protects people because of ethnicity, religion, disability status, sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity. A crime against a person because of who that person (a crime inspired by hate of a specific group of people) is one that is prone to being repeated by the prosecuted. Given a higher chance of repetition, the person is more dangerous and deserves a higher punishment than non-hate based crimes.
@TheCrossCarrier: Marriage was not first conceived as a Christian ritual. It predates Christianity, tbh. There are two distinctions in this argument: Sacramental marriage and civil marriage. We are asking for the 1000+ rights, liberties, and responsibilities of civil marriage. We can do without the sacramental marriage ceremony of anti-gay religious institutions. There is nothing wrong with "I now pronounce you husbands" or "I now pronounce you wives".
