Court strikes gay marriage ban

Court strikes gay marriage ban

There are 742 comments on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution story from Jul 9, 2010, titled Court strikes gay marriage ban. In it, Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that:

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro said the law, the Defense of Marriage Act, interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

First Prev
of 38
Next Last

Since: Dec 08

Kerrville, TX

#1 Jul 9, 2010
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#3 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
So churches that marry gay couples should not use the word "marriage" ? That's a violation of the First Amendment. You don't believe in the necessity of the Bill Of Rights, do you ?

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#5 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
Let me turn the question back to you. Why are yo so hung up on the use of the word marriage to describe same sex partnerships?

Separate, but equal doesn't work in a "democratic" republic.

Suggesting that same sex couples could have the rights and privileges of marriage, as long as we call it something else is word play and implies that the law would still recognize a "moral" difference between same sex and a more traditional marriage.

America is a secular nation and marriage, despite the emotional frenzy of the religious right, is a secular institution. The state defines the terms and conditions of the legal definition of marriage. The state issues the license that confers the status of marriage.

I have yet to see an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't find its roots in someones religious definition of the institution.

“One Bigot at a Time”

Since: Apr 07

DC

#6 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
Because it is the word that is in common use for the activity we are undertaking. Why do straight people in the united states use the word marriage when they are talking about their legal, contractual union in the eyes of the law? That's what the public debate is about.

The fact is, we could already get married in a church. That's been going on for decades.

You seem to be asking why we are asking for full equality, instead of functional equality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
Then you haven't been paying attention to the news. Hawaii governor just vetoed a bill passed by the legislature allowing for civil unions. So it's NOT just the word "marriage" that "gets everyones panties in a wad". Need more proof, Referendum 71 in Washington State 2008- almost the exact same percentage of those opposed to same-sex marriage voted against equal rights for same-sex couples in there "everything BUT marriage" law there too.

That's EXACTLY the reason why we won't settle for anything short of full marriage equality, by court decree if necessary. The anti-gay side thought they could lie and pretend to support civil unions if only we wouldn't call it marriage. Then when we do just that, they of course turn around and say it's too close to marriage so they'll STILL vote against it.

Your side brought these court ruling on yourself. Maybe if you hadn't fought us tooth & nail for ANY kind of rights for our families, you'd would be in the situation you're in now where marriage equality will be "forced on you".

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#8 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
Why does Nabisco have to call their delicious cheese crackers "cheez-its"? It sounds a lot like "jesus", and that offends me.

why don't fundie straights start calling their marriage "church marriage", and let "marriage" belong to everyone.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#9 Jul 9, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you haven't been paying attention to the news. Hawaii governor just vetoed a bill passed by the legislature allowing for civil unions. So it's NOT just the word "marriage" that "gets everyones panties in a wad". Need more proof, Referendum 71 in Washington State 2008- almost the exact same percentage of those opposed to same-sex marriage voted against equal rights for same-sex couples in there "everything BUT marriage" law there too.
That's EXACTLY the reason why we won't settle for anything short of full marriage equality, by court decree if necessary. The anti-gay side thought they could lie and pretend to support civil unions if only we wouldn't call it marriage. Then when we do just that, they of course turn around and say it's too close to marriage so they'll STILL vote against it.
Your side brought these court ruling on yourself. Maybe if you hadn't fought us tooth & nail for ANY kind of rights for our families, you'd would be in the situation you're in now where marriage equality will be "forced on you".
I agree. NOTHING short of FULL LEGAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS is acceptable, INCLUDING the word "MARRIAGE".

Since: Dec 08

Kerrville, TX

#10 Jul 9, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
So churches that marry gay couples should not use the word "marriage" ? That's a violation of the First Amendment. You don't believe in the necessity of the Bill Of Rights, do you ?
Read my post again. This is not about churchs it is about the word "marriage". A church would not "marry" them. It would be some type of CIVIL service.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#11 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
<quoted text>Read my post again. This is not about churchs it is about the word "marriage". A church would not "marry" them. It would be some type of CIVIL service.
Churches marry gay couples all the time. What planet are you on ?!

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#15 Jul 9, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches marry gay couples all the time. What planet are you on ?!
The point is that the church can "marry" anybody it wants to, but it is the state that decides if that marriage is legal or not.

Marriage is the only social institution that guarantees the hundreds of specific rights, privileges and responsibilities and protections that define a legal union between two individuals and recognition of this union is a secular matter, not a religious issue.

Since: Dec 08

Kerrville, TX

#16 Jul 9, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches marry gay couples all the time. What planet are you on ?!
If you can't listen take notes. Of course churches marry gays all the time. That is what this argument is all about. Some people do not believe this is right and therefore want the word marriage removed ond replaced with something else.

It is not about denying gays to be with each other or treating them as second class citizens, it is the wording that is the problem.
Mona Lott

Jackson, NJ

#17 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't listen take notes. Of course churches marry gays all the time. That is what this argument is all about. Some people do not believe this is right and therefore want the word marriage removed ond replaced with something else.
It is not about denying gays to be with each other or treating them as second class citizens, it is the wording that is the problem.
Then notifiy your elected representatives to spend the money to change ALL THE LAWS that confer benefits to "married" couples. Go ahead. The screams from the fundies will be heard around the world.

Since: Dec 08

Kerrville, TX

#18 Jul 9, 2010
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text> Then notifiy your elected representatives to spend the money to change ALL THE LAWS that confer benefits to "married" couples. Go ahead. The screams from the fundies will be heard around the world.
I am not sure but I think that is happening here in Texas already.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#19 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
Why do the gays have to use the word marriage. Couldn't they say something like legal partner or something? I don't think many people want to deprive them of any rights or privileges, it is just the word marriage that gets everyones panties in a wad.
Why do people who have been married and divorced have to use the word marriage the second (or more) time around? Maybe they could go by Divorced Union, or Recycled Partner or something else? Why do people who plan on not having children use the word marriage? Maybe they could call themselves Barren Partners. And elderly couples could be called Aged Pals. And don't even get some bigots started on different races or regions marrying!

Since: Dec 08

Kerrville, TX

#20 Jul 9, 2010
NE Jade wrote:
<quoted text>Why do people who have been married and divorced have to use the word marriage the second (or more) time around? Maybe they could go by Divorced Union, or Recycled Partner or something else? Why do people who plan on not having children use the word marriage? Maybe they could call themselves Barren Partners. And elderly couples could be called Aged Pals. And don't even get some bigots started on different races or regions marrying!
Because maybe they were?

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#21 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
<quoted text>Read my post again. This is not about churchs it is about the word "marriage". A church would not "marry" them. It would be some type of CIVIL service.
What universe do you dwell in?

ALL MARRIAGE is a civil service first, religious only if you want it to be.

You're just as married when a justice of the peace does it, or a ship's captain.

Marriage is a secular institution, period.

The religious fundaMENTALists have lost this culture war, and the rest are tumbling like the Berlin Wall, so get used to it.

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

“One Bigot at a Time”

Since: Apr 07

DC

#22 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
<quoted text>Read my post again. This is not about churchs it is about the word "marriage". A church would not "marry" them. It would be some type of CIVIL service.
Your church might not marry us, but many do. I was married to my partner 15 years ago, in church.

“I Love Outside.”

Since: Feb 08

Florida

#23 Jul 9, 2010
SOOO, a state has the right to make laws that allow same sexes to marry, but not to enforce federal law to stop illegal immigration?
Maybe the cartels should tell the mules that if they’re caught, just tell the cops they want sanctuary because they’re persecuted in they’re own country because they are gay and only came here to get married..

“One Bigot at a Time”

Since: Apr 07

DC

#24 Jul 9, 2010
sailorman2 wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't listen take notes. Of course churches marry gays all the time. That is what this argument is all about. Some people do not believe this is right and therefore want the word marriage removed ond replaced with something else.
It is not about denying gays to be with each other or treating them as second class citizens, it is the wording that is the problem.
What do you believe is accomplished by denying that same sex unions are in fact marriages?

“One Bigot at a Time”

Since: Apr 07

DC

#25 Jul 9, 2010
NE Jade wrote:
<quoted text>Why do people who have been married and divorced have to use the word marriage the second (or more) time around? Maybe they could go by Divorced Union, or Recycled Partner or something else? Why do people who plan on not having children use the word marriage? Maybe they could call themselves Barren Partners. And elderly couples could be called Aged Pals. And don't even get some bigots started on different races or regions marrying!
Thank you, this is stunningly appropriate.

I'm so stealing it later.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 38
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Boston College Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Smithsonian to host 1st major US Quran exhibition Jun 24 The Prophet Lied 15
News Recruiting students overseas to fill seats, not... Apr '16 Lucy Jane Ann 2
News Did Acton Actually Get an Earthquake? Feb '16 too 1
News Food | Snapchef Announces New Office in Downtow... Jan '16 CAROLINE 1
News Muslim students take on Islamophobia: Next prot... Jan '16 joy00923 2
News Major victory for BC in court battle over Belfa... (Jun '13) Oct '15 Lawrence James co... 29
News Innovation Economy | BetaBostonOn-demand apps c... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Elise Likes Cheddar 1
More from around the web