Gay vs Straight Marriage - Yes or No Poll

[psychic_serpent]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Andrea" <kattrap_meow at y...> 
wrote:
> I consider myself a lesbian and have been in a monogamous 
> relationship for over six years (longer than some marriages last). 
> 
> I am against "gay marriage" and for "domestic partnership". The 
> difference is simple:
> Marriage is something that roots itself in religion, many of which 
> do not condone gay and lesbian relationships.  

While this it is true that many religious bodies are not supportive 
of same-gender relationships, many more are than in the past (see 
the IWGonline link below).  After all, same-gender marriages were 
celebrated first in houses of worship.  Every one of those 
ceremonies had a clergy person officiating, except for ceremonies in 
Quaker meetings (the entire meeting marries the partners--although, 
I believe, this doesn't apply to "programmed" Quakers, who do 
actually have clergy).

> The legal side of marriage is also a large part of it, but (I 
> believe) secondary to the religious origins. I hate to step on 
> other people's toes and make them believe that my lifestyle is 
> equal to their lifestyles.

But it IS equal.  Don't let other folks lay an inferiority complex 
on you!  I'm somewhat disturbed by this.  The term "lifestyle" is 
rather meaningless, first of all, and used far too often by the 
mainstream press to demonize gays.  References to "the gay 
lifestyle" are particularly heinous.  I think it's meant to refer to 
a pattern of promiscuity and irresonsibility which is NOT exclusive 
to gays.  Plenty of heterosexual people have "lifestyles" which 
include swinging, cheating on their spouses, embezzling, beating 
their kids, etc.  Most of the same-gender couples I know 
have "lifestyles" that consist of going to work, gardening, doing 
home-repair and volunteering for charity on a regular basis.  Social 
change doesn't come about without stepping on some toes.  People who 
want to be offended will be offended with or without permission. 

> Domestic Partnership grants the legal rights of marriage without 
> religious overtones.

It is not necessary for marriage to have any religious overtones at 
all.  That is the point.  Right now, a mixed-gender couple can go to 
a Justice-of-the-Peace and get married with no religious involvement 
whatsoever.  A same-gender couple cannot.  The problem with Domestic 
Partnership legislation is that while it is easier to get passed in 
some places, because the authors of such bills often go out of their 
way to emphasize the difference between DP and marriage laws, the 
very fact that there are separate laws leads to the problem of 
separate but unequal protection under the law for same-gender and 
mixed-gender couples.

> If my significant other gets into an accident, I can't be in the 
> emergency hospital room. If she dies, I become secondary to her 
> family (many of which she hasn't spoken to in years).  There are 
> other things, but these come to mind first


And while some Domestic Partnership legisation is designed to combat 
this problem, not all bills are designed this way.  Again, there is 
the separate-but-unequal problem.  Equal access to marriage would 
erase this inequality.  Marriage is not an inherently religious 
institution.  Many people claim it is, but it is actually a legal 
contract.  Some people like to have a religious ceremony go along 
with it, but this is hardly a government requirement.  Just as it is 
religious discrimination that same-gender marriages celebrated in 
houses of worship are not recognized by the government but mixed-
gender marriages celebrated in the same house of worship are, it is 
discrimination against same-gender couples who are NOT religious for 
there to be no non-religious method--legal marriage--for their 
relationship and feeling of shared responsibility toward one another 
to be acknowledged and codified.

--Barb

http://www.iwgonline.org 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb