# 70% against Gay Marriage???



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

What are the arguments against gay marriage? All I have heard refer to protecting the sanctity of marriage. I'm not really sure what even that means. I broke out the ol' Websters and sanctity refers to holiness, sanction refers to confirming or recognizing, and sanctimony refers to religious hypocricy. (we didn't have a church wedding, so I don't think sanctity refers to my marriage) If 70% of Americans are against this, I figured it had to be based on money (health or SS benefits or...) , because why else would anyone care? I'm just looking for the logic behind this debate.


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., reported that in the two days before the vote she received 4,500 calls on the FMA, with only 150 against it.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., received 2,100 calls, with only 150 against. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., received 1,500 calls, with fewer than 100 against.

FMA

Perhaps this article will show how americans feel. Don't forget that the media spoon feeds the public of their opinion , not the opinion of the people.


----------



## mshollyk (Sep 24, 2002)

it's about religion.


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

duh! thank you. I was reading too much into it.


----------



## mshollyk (Sep 24, 2002)

oh and i so totally do not believe they only received 150 calls in NC and VA. both states have fairly sizable gay populations. i think it's cute that the number is the same


----------



## janerose (May 9, 2004)

Honestly, I'd say that the arguments against gay marriage are really just bigotry. People try to hide those opinions behind other words like "morals" or "religion", but in the end it's just another form of racism plain & simple.

I have no idea why folks are so threatened by the idea of gay marriage. I mean, it's not like you're *less* married just because gay people can be, KWIM? I also find it pretty unlikely that only 150 people in those states called to object to the amendment. I live in VT & can say with 100% certainty that the "morals" of our society did not crumble when they started allowing Civil Unions a couple years ago.

The link above it to World Net Daily, which is VERY conservative. Like fanatically so. I know becuase my FIL reads it religiously every day & forwards articles to everyone all the time.







: They live down near New Paltz, NY (and actually both my MIL & FIL went to SUNY New Paltz in the 70's) and were all whipped up about the marriages going on down there. DH *totally* pissed him off during all that by saying "Good for him!" about the New Paltz mayor marrying gays.

Oh well, this is also the guy who refers to muslims as "Ar-abs" and doesn't think that people who are different religions should marry each other. Thankfully we live 5 hrs away from them!









Holly


----------



## blueridgewoman (Nov 19, 2001)

The reason that Allen did not receive as many calls is because he, like the true man of the people he is, had his phone on a message system which stated that he was voting FOR the FMA and that no comments from his constituents were necessary. Which I thought was very fairminded and "of the people."

So I HARDLY think that his numbers are a good indication of how the populace feels about the FMA.


----------



## Leatherette (Mar 4, 2003)

I think people are bored and don't have enough real things that they are willing to deal with in their lives, so they find someone to be against. Gays are an easy target for them. They're different.

Ugg. The whole thing makes me so ashamed of my country.

But it didn't pass in the senate







!!!

L.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I'd say that the arguments against gay marriage are really just bigotry.

very well said! Sadly true.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2x*
...If 70% of Americans are against this, I figured it had to be based on money (health or SS benefits or...) , because why else would anyone care? I'm just looking for the logic behind this debate.

It's not 70%. If it were, then yesterday's admendment would have passed. It didn't. The outcry is just not there. *Republican* Senator John McCain said:..._the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today...The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said..._

Go here (you may have to scroll down) to find a 2003 poll done in Massachusetts KRC Communications Research for Globe/WBZ.(Margin of error: 5%)

In a nutshell, the overall population was 50% in favor of allowing same sex couples to marry. However, broken down by age, the results are more interesting. Of people over 65, only 21% favored allowing same sex couples to marriage. But in people ages 18 to 39, the percentage in favor went up to 62%.

Another poll , conducted by New Jersey City University for The Jersey Journal found that of people over 65, 20% were in favor of allowing same sex couples to marry. Among 18 to 29 year olds, the percentage in favor of same-sex marriages rises to 71%.

Not to be crash, but frankly, it's a waiting game. The more people you know who are gay, the more likely you are to be in favor of gay and lesbian rights (including marriage.) As more and more people feel safe enough to out themselves to their community, it becomes more and more difficult to discriminate against them (not that it should be incumbent upon only gays and lesbians to fight this fight. I believe this is an issue for all justice seeking people) It's one thing to feel that the people participating in the drag queen float at the gay pride parade are so different from you that they don't deserve the same rights as you (a popular tactic of the anti-gay and lesbian rights movement.) It's quite another to feel your sister, your brother, your neighbor, your teacher or your mayor doesn't deserve the same rights as you.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Yep, bigotry sums it up.


----------



## Kinipela79 (Apr 8, 2003)

A friend of mine (who is openly gay) said that it drives him crazy because people who are against gay marriage are so hung up on the religion/church thing when all he wants is the same rights and benefits that I have with my dh...he knows he and his partner are in love and he doesn't need, or want, a church to tell him that...they just want the same rights.


----------



## magemom (Mar 5, 2002)

I am for it.
My mother and I had a chat about this and we agreed to compromise. I said I understood her definition of marraige was church based, 1 man 1 woman. She said yes. I said anyone married by a non church based ceremony would be a civil union. (how I have always viewed a JoP ceremony) both have full rights within the state, but the church sees them as different. She said she can supoprt that thinking. SIL has a civil union with her husband, DH and I have a marriage, by this definition.
So to me, gay marraige is just fine and to my mom fine, as long as the gov't doesn't tell her pastor who to marry. I could care less. Who married DH and I means little to me. It is what we have done after the ceremony that is important.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magemom*
... I said anyone married by a non church based ceremony would be a civil union. (how I have always viewed a JoP ceremony) both have full rights within the state, but the church sees them as different...

I totally disgree with this. I was _married_ to my husband by a JP. Married_To unite in wedlock or matrimony; to perform the ceremony of joining...according to the laws or customs of the place._ My church views people who are married by a JP as just as married as those married by a minister. I think having the government decide who is "married" vs who has a "civil union" is wrong and a recipe for discrimination. "Seperate but equal" has a long history in our nation, almost none of it good.

Further, the law of the land as it stands now only recongnizes "Marriage" federally (Thanks, President Clinton for DOMA.







: ) "Civil Union" is only recongnized by states or in some cases, only within certain cities within a state. I'm not giving up any of my rights to make someone else feel more comfortable. I don't see why gays and lesbians should be denied those rights in the first place.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magemom*
...and to my mom fine, as long as the gov't doesn't tell her pastor who to marry...

But that has never been the issue. UU ministers have been marrying gays and lesbians by the hundreds since the state of Massachusetts and the city of San Francisco declared gay and lesbian marriage legal. UU minsters have been coming out of retirement to handle the demand! But no one is _forcing_ any religious leaders to marry gays and lesbians.

Some religious leaders will not marry people of different faiths, some will not married those properly divorced in the church and so on. And that's completely within their rights. Perhaps reminding your mother of those facts will ease her mind.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sleeping queen*
Perhaps this article will show how americans feel. Don't forget that the media spoon feeds the public of their opinion , not the opinion of the people.

The only thing it shows is what a tiny minority of voters in 2 of the most conservative states in the nation actually feel.

And this:

"However, an April poll of 1,000 Americans conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide for the Alliance for Marriage showed 67 percent in favor of the amendment and 30 percent opposed. Among the supporters, 57 percent were strongly in favor and 10 percent somewhat in favor. A March poll by the New York Times showed 59 percent in favor."

It's interesting to me that the MSNBC poll I voted on yesterday showed that 76% of those polled were against the amendment while only 24% were for. Kind of shows you the value of those polls, doesn't it?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blueridgewoman*
The reason that Allen did not receive as many calls is because he, like the true man of the people he is, had his phone on a message system which stated that he was voting FOR the FMA and that no comments from his constituents were necessary. Which I thought was very fairminded and "of the people."

So I HARDLY think that his numbers are a good indication of how the populace feels about the FMA.









I got through to his office yesterday morning. And then got a lovely form letter back by e-mail today telling me all about how the FMA was morally justificable - necessary, even.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

slightly







T

Just wanted to point out there is a BIG difference (for many people) between being against gay marraige but for civil unions.

The majority of US citizens are, from what I have glommed together, against gays being "married." BUT, the majority of US citizens also support gays right to have a civil union w/the same rights & responsibilities of marraige.

I hate when people argue, "well I just don't want *my* pastor to have to marry two ____". That's ALREADY true of everyone--- not just based on sexual orientation. For example, you cannot force a Catholic Priest to marry two non-Catholics--- they just won't. Such a nonsense arguement


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *janerose*
Honestly, I'd say that the arguments against gay marriage are really just bigotry. People try to hide those opinions behind other words like "morals" or "religion", but in the end it's just another form of racism plain & simple.

Holly


"Racism" refers to people of different races. I think you mean discrimination.


----------



## janerose (May 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
"Racism" refers to people of different races. I think you mean discrimination.

Nope...I meant racism. I realize that the dictionary definition is about another race, but frankly I think it applies to any minority group that's marginalized. As far as people like my FIL are concerned gays *are* another race. Discrimination works too though.









Holly


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

DH and I were married in New Paltz by the town judge - I'm so proud to have been married in a town that would marry gays.

There IS a difference between civil and religious marriages in the eyes of religions and the law. Legally, you aren't married unless you have a civil union. You can have a civil union (as DH and I did) without a religious component. You can get a civil union at the same time as a religious one, but they are separate. You can get a religious union but not a civil one, as my Native American friend did when she was married for 7 years from a Native ceremony.

Almost all religious marriages contain a civil component (you went and applied for a marriage license, your pastor/priest/rabbi is certified by your state to marry people, and your marriage licensed is signed and witnessed.

But there is a difference. For example, a Hassidic woman can apply for, and win a civil divorce but be denied a religious divorce. And if she hasn't got the religious divorce, then no one in her religion or community sees her as divorced. A Catholic can apply for a divorce but might have to apply for a religious annulment of marriage before his church accepts him as single again.

Both are important in their own ways, and people choose to some of each. But this issue is about civil rights, and the rights of everyone to get married in a "civil union" style as all heterosexuals are allowed now. No religious figures would be forced to conduct such marriages. But all civil judges and other civil figures certified to perform the ceremony would be forced to. Religion doesn't enter into it except in the minds of all the bigoted people who want to force Christian values into our federal law.


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

I just wanted to point out to SQ also that churches did a big organized phone call-in to Senators on Monday. Just because they are organized, does not make them right. People that believe that Gays should not marry should be ashamed of themselves. Bigots, Bigots, Bigots.

Darn (nod to no-swearing rule) - where is my global blowhorn when I want it.

I was calling in to register my vote too.

Victorian


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

So a civil union is the exact same thing as a marriage - just a different name? Done by the court, I guess, not by the church?


----------



## janerose (May 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2x*
So a civil union is the exact same thing as a marriage - just a different name? Done by the court, I guess, not by the church?

Pretty much. You can argue that there is a different level of discrimination by insisting that gay people call their unions "civil" rather than married. After all, most hetero people who aren't marriage in the church still say they're "married" not in a "civil union".

Here in VT if you enter into a civil union you have all the same rights as entering into a marriage. Actually the VT civil union law wasn't written only for homosexual folks. Anyone in VT can have a civil union, regardless of your sexual orientation.

Holly


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

See my thread in War and Politics, "Protect Marriage" Sunday, in ref to organized conservative Xtian efforts to discriminate against gay rights to legal unions.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=167522


----------



## Cajunmomma (Nov 21, 2001)

I hardly know what my opinion is about this, but I have heard that when the United States changed the laws which prohibited interracial marriages, that was done despite the fact that 90% of the population was in favor of the prohibition. I'm not equating the two situations; I'm just saying that legislators don't always let public opinion guide their actions. I'm not sure that quoting polls and passing laws based on popularity ever makes any kind of sense.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

<<Here in VT if you enter into a civil union you have all the same rights as entering into a marriage. Actually the VT civil union law wasn't written only for homosexual folks. Anyone in VT can have a civil union, regardless of your sexual orientation.>>.......

Let's be clear here, civil unions do NOT have all the same rights as marriages. Civil unions are not federally recognized, so all the really important things that come with marriage do NOT come with civil unions. I don't want a civil union, I want marriage, nothing less. The benefits and responsibilities that come with civil unions are given by the state only, and to be frank more of them are reponsibilities than benefits. I live in California and we have domestic partnerships here, and in January we will get many more of the state responsibilities given in marriage. I am not opposed to it, but it does make me angry that I am still refused those federal benefits like spousal social security and medicare benefits, the ability to file joint tax returns, not having to pay federal taxes on insurance benefits (most people have no idea that even though many employers offer domestic partners insurance benefits, those benefits are taxed, unlike married couples), and immigration rights.

Quite frankly there are NO rational arguments against same sex marriage (it's not gay marriage, as bisexuals are in this mix as well) IMO. I have never seen one decent argument against it.

blessings,
JoAnne
partner to Mary, mothers to Ryan, 9 months


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I'm glad you brought that up, the main reason I call it same sex marriage is because there is no requirement to be gay to marry someone of the same sex. Just as there is no requirement to be heterosexual (oops good thing for me) to marry someone of the opposite sex. GLBTQs have married opposite sex people in the past (for whatever reasons). There will be nothing stopping two heterosexuals of the same sex from marrying either once same sex marriage is legal.

So it is not gay marriage.

Just to be clear, I see same sex marriage as an equal rights issue (did I already say that in this thread?) because love is love regardless of the sexual make up of the parties involved. Don't even bother with that tired old argument about how since I just said gays can marry we don't need same sex marriage. I'm not biting that bait, nor playing that game, so move on along.

off my soapbox


----------



## Kinipela79 (Apr 8, 2003)

So what exactly defines "marriage"?? Do you have to be married in a church to be married? I was under the impression that a civil union was the same thing as marriage but you just weren't "blessed" or whatever by a church? Dh and I got married outside and by a family friend who was Presbyterian and mil was all upset because we weren't really married or something?? (We ended up getting our marriage blessed in a church by a Catholic priest so everyone felt better I guess.







) I know that being Catholic is kind of a weird thing on it's own as far as their "rules" SO if you can make ANY sense of this post...thanks!!


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kinipela79*
So what exactly defines "marriage"?? Do you have to be married in a church to be married? I was under the impression that a civil union was the same thing as marriage but you just weren't "blessed" or whatever by a church? Dh and I got married outside and by a family friend who was Presbyterian and mil was all upset because we weren't really married or something?? (We ended up getting our marriage blessed in a church by a Catholic priest so everyone felt better I guess.







) I know that being Catholic is kind of a weird thing on it's own as far as their "rules" SO if you can make ANY sense of this post...thanks!!









Civil unions are ONLY between same sex couples in the states of Massachussets and Vermont in the US . No, you do not have to be married in a church to be officially married in the US. A marriage is still a marriage if it is done by a Justice of the Peace, Judge, etc. Your family is catholic who believe that only marriages within the church are true marriages (which is stupid because the catholic church is fighting same sex marriages, be consistent people!). Many of the same sex couples who sought civil unions in Vermont and Mass. had their ceremonies in churches, just to confuse you, lol.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I'm totally for same sex marriage rights. I think we'll look back on this issue as a major civil rights violation. The grandchildren of those opposed will look upon their opinion as bigotry - that's something to consider. You may have support for your bigotry now but it's dwindling - thankfully.

I don't accept any reasons to oppose as even remotely reasonable. It's wrong to oppose it, IMO.

I haven't been that involved in the other threads (mostly because people already support my opinion) but I have many other thoughts on this issue. One big one is that I don't think "nature/nurture" is relevant. It kind of bugs me to read, "It's okay because they were born that way." I just really don't like the implications of that type of thinking.

My biggest reason (among others) is that I just see absolutely no reason to prevent it. Seriously, why?

(I think another reason that I haven't posted is because I will find it hard to be "polite" about people disagreeing with me on this one)


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Federally-recognized marriage is different from civil unions. People in marriages get survivorship benes from the gov't. They have property and inheritance rights (no families swooping in and taking your house). They have different rights regarding children. Married people are guaranteed access to and control over the medical care of their spouses in hospitals. People joined in CUs may get some of these rights, but married couples have certain automatic rights, priveleges and responsibilities.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I don't think "nature/nurture" is relevant.

I agree, and also have a question about this line of thinking. How does "nature vs nuture" (supposedly) relate to sexual orientation being a choice? I guess what I seem to be "hearing" is that, if sexual orientation is not genetic, then it is a choice. Can anyone explain that reasoning? How does environmental influence (in early childhood....or even prenatal...) equal a choice?

Is there *any* evidence that sexual orientation is a choice?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Is there *any* evidence that sexual orientation is a choice?
People saying that they feel it is a choice for them? Do you consider that evidence?


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Hmmm....no I don't consider that evidence, generally. Cause that would be true for the individual, but not necessarily all individuals, kwim?

I guess this would be the difference between sexual acts and sexual orientation. I feel, and have felt from puberty, pretty near the middle in sexual orientation. I am attracted to men and women. For me, then, there really is a choice about with which gender I will have a sexual relationship. But my sexual orientation (bisexual?) was not a choice I made. It is just my reality. Others seem not to have any choice in their decision to mate with the same or opposite gender; they are exclusively attracted to only one gender. So, no, I don't consider people's report that they chose to be hetero or homosexual evidence that *orientation is a choice.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I haven't been that involved in the other threads (mostly because people already support my opinion) but I have many other thoughts on this issue. One big one is that I don't think "nature/nurture" is relevant. It kind of bugs me to read, "It's okay because they were born that way." I just really don't like the implications of that type of thinking.

The reason the "nature/nurture" debate gets thrown around from both sides is because a determination of whether or not homosexuality is genetic would most likely affect the level of scrutiny given an equal protection argument against any prohibition of gay marriage. Right now, because homosexuality hasn't been categorized as an "immutable characteristic," homosexuals as a class get no enhanced protection. If it were scientifically proven that homosexuality wasn't a choice, the level of scrutiny for laws violating the rights of that class would change.

That said, I'm with you - I think the fact that this is even an issue is both ludicrous and pathetic. And I'm pretty certain that once the old fogeys are out and the new wave is in, it *won't* be an issue.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I guess this would be the difference between sexual acts and sexual orientation. I feel, and have felt from puberty, pretty near the middle in sexual orientation. I am attracted to men and women. For me, then, there really is a choice about with which gender I will have a sexual relationship. But my sexual orientation (bisexual?) was not a choice I made. It is just my reality. Others seem not to have any choice in their decision to mate with the same or opposite gender; they are exclusively attracted to only one gender. So, no, I don't consider people's report that they chose to be hetero or homosexual evidence that *orientation is a choice.
There is no scientific basis that everyone is born w/their sexual orientation either. I guess I was asking *what* you would consider scientific evidence that there is a choice component for all/some people?


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I guess I was asking *what* you would consider scientific evidence that there is a choice component for all/some people?

I dunno








I guess what *I was asking is, what is the evidence that supports the choice theory? I mean, the burden now seems to be on the "gay rights"-side to disprove the choice theory (as Dragonfly explained above). But where is the evidence for the other side? And why is the burden on the side of the people seeking equal rights? Shouldn't you have some pretty strong evidence to *deny* people equal rights???


----------

