Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Marriage Equality Day

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,254 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:07 AM

So today is Marriage Equality Day I think, it's amazing and refreshing to see how the general tide has changed over the past few years, hopefully within a decade we will no longer have to have a day like this as all my brothers and sisters will be allowed to be happy and married with anyone of their choosing.

#2 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:16 AM

Well said.

#3 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:48 AM

We can only hope. Actually, we can do more. We can vote for officials and talk to them about our feelings on the subject.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#4 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,305 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:52 AM

hopefully within a decade we will no longer have to have a day like this as all my brothers and sisters will be allowed to be happy and married with anyone of their choosing.


More like "happy and divorced" just like the rest of us but yeah.

#5 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,305 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:55 AM

While we're all in a trust circle and singing Kumbaya, I may as well toss this in the ring:

In several places in the south, communities are still holding segregated proms. Yes, you heard that right. In 2013, black kids and white kids are not allowed to dance together at the same prom.

*head explodes*

A bunch of kids are fighting the lazy, slack-assedy, cowardly school officials that allow this to happen by maintaining it's a "private prom". Seriously, **** those people. Help these kids out. Give them a few bucks and let the kids have a prom that isn't mired in 1961 Selma Alabama. God, I hate the south so much.

https://www.facebook...rom2013?fref=ts

If you like the page, a donate button should appear. For some reason, it's inconsistent for me. It appears sometimes, not others.

#6 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:18 AM

It is amazing how backward people can still be.....I'm assuming this thread is safe for politics....

This is one reason we will never move to the South. Unreal.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#7 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,305 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:23 AM

Politics are allowed, we just have to keep it civil. I try to keep a close eye on any thread that turns political.

#8 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,323 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:39 PM

Brock, this is why I will always be a Braves fan from the north. I had a teammate in college who was from Mississippi. We're lifting one day, and I notice a gash in his upper side, just under his arm. I ask him about it, and apparently, he and a white girl fell for one another, went on a few dates, and on one, they were spotted by the regional leader of the KKK. They had strung a 16 year-old boy up from a tree by his arms and started to cut him open from his armpits on down his side when a group of police caught wind and went outside of their jurisdiction in order to flash their lights and make them stop. The people who took a teen boy and strung him up to spill his guts on the ground just for taking out a white girl avoided all prosecution because the responding officers left their jurisdiction to save his life without notifying the officers in the proper jurisdiction first. That's not something from 1955, that's from 1996, and crap like that still happens. It's sickening.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#9 Longdistancetwins

Longdistancetwins

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:27 PM

I'm against same-sex marriage. Guess what? We are not monsters, bigots, or segregationists.

#10 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

I'm against same-sex marriage. Guess what? We are not monsters, bigots, or segregationists.


how is it not segregationist or bigotry to deny other people the same legal rights based on how they were born? I'm not gong to be mean to you, I want to know your argument for how this is different than whites and blacks can't intermarry.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#11 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 01:10 AM

how is it not segregationist or bigotry to deny other people the same legal rights based on how they were born? I'm not gong to be mean to you, I want to know your argument for how this is different than whites and blacks can't intermarry.


That is largely the crux of this problem imo. Marriage is a religious construct that has been around for millennia. Government has recently then tried to usurp the word to fit a legal definition. There are two competing interests trying to use the same word.

I think government at all levels, federal, state, local, needs to remove the word "marriage" from all legal documents and replace this with a new word(s). Civil Union certainly seems viable. The separation of church and state should go both ways. Then churches, clergy and congregations can make local decisions on how they will handle marriage.

Civil Unions however would legally apply to all couples seeking legal standing. This could include tax breaks, legal guardianship issues, insurance coverage, etc...

There is no inalienable right to marriage from a civil rights perspective except that which the government has created by using the term "marriage" within the legal framework. If the term "marriage" is switched out for "Civil Union" there will no longer be two entities trying to use the word for different purposes.

#12 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:32 AM

There are two competing interests trying to use the same word.


I agree with much of your post, but there is a major flaw. First though, I agree we need to stop talking about marriage as a "right" - it's a license, not a right. Religious people need to remember that it's a judge who approves it, not the minister who conducts it that determines the marriage we're talking about here. (legal marriage) People fighting for gay marriage have to keep this fight in the proper context as well, some of the dialogue about how they are being denied a right gets almost comically inaccurate.

My issue with you is that this phenomenon of people opposed to gay marriage fighting over the word is a recent development. The concept of civil unions for gay people has been around since at least the late 80s and was fought, tooth and nail, by religious, anti-gay marriage people from the get-go. I know, I've had this conversation with family members many times in the last 10-15 years. If this were truly about the word, civil union legislation would've been a slam dunk and the DOMA would have never existed. I ask anyone who disagrees to give me another reason why DOMA exists if it's only about the term, not about the legal rights. DOMA is, was, and continues to be legislated bigotry.

The fact is, the ground beneath the feet of people opposed to gay marriage is shrinking and they are clutching to anything that diverts attention from the heart of the matter (they don't want gays to be able to marry, no matter what you call it) and using the term as a shield is the new vogue thing. We could call marriage "civil partnerships" or "The Union of Guaranteed Perpetual Unhappiness" or "God's approval to breed" and it wouldn't matter - it's the fact that gay people want it that's the issue. Not what we call it.

I hope that wasn't offensive, but the national conversation on this (from both sides) is beyond aggravating.

#13 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 10:00 AM

Marriage is a legal contract. The church ceremony has no bind in most states. No one is asking any church to change, not through law. We are asking for the law to change. And if it is just a word, why do you care?

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#14 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 10:01 AM

I appreciate your willingness to post in a thread where you are outnumbered, takes guts and principle.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#15 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:24 PM

I agree with much of your post, but there is a major flaw. First though, I agree we need to stop talking about marriage as a "right" - it's a license, not a right. Religious people need to remember that it's a judge who approves it, not the minister who conducts it that determines the marriage we're talking about here. (legal marriage) People fighting for gay marriage have to keep this fight in the proper context as well, some of the dialogue about how they are being denied a right gets almost comically inaccurate.

My issue with you is that this phenomenon of people opposed to gay marriage fighting over the word is a recent development. The concept of civil unions for gay people has been around since at least the late 80s and was fought, tooth and nail, by religious, anti-gay marriage people from the get-go. I know, I've had this conversation with family members many times in the last 10-15 years. If this were truly about the word, civil union legislation would've been a slam dunk and the DOMA would have never existed. I ask anyone who disagrees to give me another reason why DOMA exists if it's only about the term, not about the legal rights. DOMA is, was, and continues to be legislated bigotry.

The fact is, the ground beneath the feet of people opposed to gay marriage is shrinking and they are clutching to anything that diverts attention from the heart of the matter (they don't want gays to be able to marry, no matter what you call it) and using the term as a shield is the new vogue thing. We could call marriage "civil partnerships" or "The Union of Guaranteed Perpetual Unhappiness" or "God's approval to breed" and it wouldn't matter - it's the fact that gay people want it that's the issue. Not what we call it.

I hope that wasn't offensive, but the national conversation on this (from both sides) is beyond aggravating.


Your whole premise is incorrect. People don't care about Marriage because of the legal rights it bestows, though those are a nice bonus, they get married because of the religious ceremony and connotations that goes with it. If it was truly about the legal aspects then the crowd would be lining up at the courthouse watching the bride(s) sign their piece of paper. No girl dreams of signing that paper. No it's about the dress, showing your family and friends that you love your partner, and doing it all in front of God. The fact that the government then requires you to sign a piece of paper for their purposes is just so you get the added bonuses that go with Marriage.

I do agree with you however that if you go back to the beginning of the term "Civil Union" it was highly controversial. I recently read an interview with the state legislator (from somewhere in the northeast...Maine? Vermont? anyone remember?) that created the original legislation creating the term Civil Union. There certainly were big debates but the fundamental key to passing legislation giving some legal standing to same sex couples was changing from the word Marriage to the word Civil Union. There is a large portion of the anti-gay marriage crowd that disagree with it because of the religious connotations associated with Marriage. If you remove those connotations by changing the word many people don't have as big a deal with resulting legal relationship. As a society we have also come a LONG ways in our viewpoints on same sex marriage.

That's not to say it would solve ALL problems. Certainly there is a segment of the population that disagrees with the concept entirely. However by changing the name I think enough anti-gay marriage advocates would allow the legislation to pass resulting in an equal standing in the eyes of the legal system. To me that is the big deal here. Our government is built upon the principle of equality and legally right now same sex couples are not equal to heterogeneous couples.

As for DOMA I'm not sure what you're confused by. It has the word Marriage right in it. That puts the legal community and the religious community at odds right away.

#16 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:45 PM

Marriage is a legal contract. The church ceremony has no bind in most states. No one is asking any church to change, not through law. We are asking for the law to change. And if it is just a word, why do you care?



Marriage was originally, and I think in people's minds still is, a religious convention. It is a commitment to your partner in front of the eyes of your friends, family, and most importantly God. The fact that the government has since tried to turn the word into a legal definition does not change the fact it is viewed by the public at large as a religious event.

I care not a whit about the word Marriage. I do care that the government is founded on an idea of equality in the eyes of the law. In this case that is not true. Same sex couples do not have the same legal standing as mixed sex couples.

I appreciate your willingness to post in a thread where you are outnumbered, takes guts and principle.


I'm not sure if you're responding to me or not here. If so I think you're misinterpreting my view point. I think there should be equality in the eyes of the law. I think the best way of doing that, both the neatest and the easiest, is to change all terminology from marriage to civil union. I also believe the government shouldn't be getting involved in religious affairs in either direction. There should be no laws requiring churches to offer same sex ceremonies and there should be no laws forbidding same sex ceremonies. That decision should be made at a local church level based on the congregations wishes. I would hope that if a same sex couple wanted to get married to affirm their relationship in front of God they could find a place to do that.

At a personal level I have no problems with anything that happens in a private persons home as long as that does not harm someone else. I have friends who are gay and support them completely. I would definitely encourage and show up to their wedding if that was what they wanted to do.

#17 Longdistancetwins

Longdistancetwins

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:29 PM

If this were truly about the word, civil union legislation would've been a slam dunk and the DOMA would have never existed. I ask anyone who disagrees to give me another reason why DOMA exists if it's only about the term, not about the legal rights. DOMA is, was, and continues to be legislated bigotry.

I hope that wasn't offensive, but the national conversation on this (from both sides) is beyond aggravating.


The very next thing in the U.S. Constitution, after describing the roles of the three branches of government (that you learn about in civic class), is the “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution. This actually obliges Congress to act when states disagree on what contracts to honor. Doesn’t get talked about much, but DOMA makes sense. I do think, however, that all its language about protecting marriage undermines this issue. I also think some allowances could have been made in Federal tax law, etc., for these differences, out of charity and kindness, if nothing else.

As for “equal rights” and all that language, any definition of marriage is discriminatory. All the advocates for same-sex marriage are discriminating mightily against those committed relationships that are not sexual partnerships: elderly siblings, for example, who live together. They may have inheritance rights, but little else. And all this comes from the same people who wanted to take “government out of the bedroom.”

Nothing is as open and shut as you people make it. That you can’t see that and resort to name-calling is ugly, in my book. Now let’s get back to talking about the Minnesota Twins.

#18 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

The fact that the government then requires you to sign a piece of paper for their purposes is just so you get the added bonuses that go with Marriage.


My premise is not incorrect, as demonstrated by this. We are talking about LEGAL marriage. If you don't want the benefits of having a legally recognized marriage you are welcome to hold whatever beautiful ceremony you want. It's irrelevant to the legal aspects. If it was simply about ceremonies and celebrations in front of God - NOTHING is requiring churches to start marrying gay couples. And I would stand vehemently opposed to any attempt to do so.

The argument gets confused when you do precisely what you did this entire post - conflate the ceremonial aspects of marriage with the legal aspects. They need not be wed so tightly, even though for many people they are. (pun intended)

As a society we have also come a LONG ways in our viewpoints on same sex marriage.


I would suggest to you that we have not. I think there are more people that were wishy-washy that have slid in the opposite direction, but the core that is resisting gay marriage has not changed at all. They just continue to try to find more sympathetic ground to stand on so the bigotry isn't exposed. Again, if it was only about the sacred nature of the word, Civil Unions would've been passed as a glorious compromise and no Defense of Marriage Act would've ever been passed to prevent those from getting recognized in other states. The entire premise of that legislation was to outlaw that if some states did rename marriage to extend the benefits the states who don't want gays have legal rights wouldn't have to honor them under their definition of marriage.

Essentially, that legislation (still defended adamantly today) prevents your theory from being workable in a large cross-section of the country. So the question remains - why would that legislation be there and defended heavily if indeed most people are just hung up on the word? I think you've fallen for the smoke and ignored the fire.

#19 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:45 PM

Doesn’t get talked about much, but DOMA makes sense.


Let's clean up your language and state it plainly. Many states don't want to honor legal rights to gays no matter what you call it. So if it's not about the word - what is it about? It's a simple question.

As for “equal rights” and all that language, any definition of marriage is discriminatory.


First off, I've gone out of my way not to name call, the closest I've seen of anyone in here is your reference to "you people". If you are referring to "bigotry", well then I use it as the most apt description. There is a large segment of the population committed to being intolerant of a particular life-style. As for this point, you're right that marriage is discriminatory. And, if you had verifiable evidence that there was a valid reason to discriminate against gay couples, I think you could make a good case. Unfortunately, even by the lesser conditions of the Equal Protection clause, there is little reason to do this. Studies are unclear about parenting advantages, generally showing the sex matters less than stability. One could argue there are BETTER reasons to start discriminating against some straight people from marrying. So I agree, discrimination is part of life. That doesn't mean this form of discrimination is acceptable.

Especially when there is such difficulty forming a coherent argument to do it.

#20 Longdistancetwins

Longdistancetwins

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:58 PM

First off, I've gone out of my way not to name call, the closest I've seen of anyone in here is your reference to "you people". If you are referring to "bigotry", well then I use it as the most apt description. .


"You people" is referring to all advocates of gay rights, including the New York Times and many other so-called respectable media outlets, as well as people on Twins Daily, who use the word "bigotry" to refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage. So, we have nothing more to talk about--except the Twins, brother. (Don't call me "brother" back because I am a girl).

#21 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:00 PM

who use the word "bigotry" to refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage..


By all means, describe why you're opposed to gay marriage. If it doesn't fit definitionally, I'll happily retract.

#22 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 2,014 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:42 PM

(Don't call me "brother" back because I am a girl).

What you want to be treated as valuable and acknowledged for having a unique point of view and social experience? How unreasonable. Hot damn, that's moral irony right there folks.

#23 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,511 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:03 AM

"You people" is referring to all advocates of gay rights, including the New York Times and many other so-called respectable media outlets, as well as people on Twins Daily, who use the word "bigotry" to refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage. So, we have nothing more to talk about--except the Twins, brother. (Don't call me "brother" back because I am a girl).


For me the bottom line is that our system confers huge benefits to married people -- including tax benefits, inheritance rights and rights to social security survivor benefits.

Do you believe that gay couples should not be able to get all of the same benefits as heterosexual couples? If not, then why?

My sense is that ultimately all the arguments against gay marriage have a religious/cultural basis. That's not new. The arguments in favor of slavery and against female voting were very similar. The Bible talks about putting men to death for homosexuality, and it also has passages supporting slavery and women not having equal rights.

Sadly, my experience has been that most people never sit down and actually read the Bible. My experience has been that there is a lot of value there, but also a lot that makes little sense, including the concept of putting people to death because they are homosexuals. Unless we want to trample on people's first amendment rights to be free from other people's religions, it seems to me that government policies should be based on religiously neutral principles.

#24 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:54 AM

Good post Glunn. The unfortunate reality is that strong religious faith can come with negativity as well if not fully considered. I know there are many people of many faiths who refuse to allow any person or book to allow them down the path of prejudice. But the reality is there a very significant population who do allow themselves to have bigoted feelings in the name of religion. I've yet to meet someone who, when pressed, can oppose gay marriage on any coherent, factual arguments. Unfortunately that only leaves prejudice left.

#25 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,156 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:29 AM

Good post Glunn. The unfortunate reality is that strong religious faith can come with negativity as well if not fully considered. I know there are many people of many faiths who refuse to allow any person or book to allow them down the path of prejudice. But the reality is there a very significant population who do allow themselves to have bigoted feelings in the name of religion. I've yet to meet someone who, when pressed, can oppose gay marriage on any coherent, factual arguments. Unfortunately that only leaves prejudice left.


Precisely. Especially your last two sentences.

#26 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,079 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:11 AM

It's also worth pointing out that not all religions oppose gay marriage. When I was doing legal work in PA, the local Quaker and Mennonite Churches recognized same sex marriages and it was the government that didn't recognize them.

#27 ChiTownTwinsFan

ChiTownTwinsFan

    Moderation in all things ...

  • Twins Mods
  • 6,577 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

Frankly, I just don't understand those who claim what they do in the name of religious principle, then turn around and use that as a cover for nothing more than hate. For me, treating others as you would have them treat you is nothing more than a standard for equality. But for those who claim to be guided by religious principles, I guess the Golden Rule applies only to those who are what you think they should be and not who they are.

#28 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,254 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:29 PM

This thread is full of outrageous claims and lies, we all know there are no girls on the internet.