Monday, November 10, 2008

Back in My saddle again

I am feeling about as disillusioned about society as I ever have, right about now.

Prop 8 was a discussion this evening. I am finally getting it! Yeah for me.

My same sex friends are as fixated on the Semantic of Marriage as the heterosexual couples.

I guess I am a broken person, as my beliefs are:

This is a Federal matter, as all rights of partnership; including those of “marriage” steam from a legal document we now call a marriage license.

I think all couples regardless of sex, should apply for a license to be legally bound. That would mean under a Federal Law, all couples that want to be partners are, afforded the Federal Rights of Social Security, Exemptions for Partners, adopting children, and would be afforded that right under our constitution of Non – discrimination. (Hope we have that non discrimination thing in our constitution).

We would term this:” American license to domestic partnership”: and all couples would be required, if they wanted the privileges afforded; in order to get this document and ensure legal binding.

My next thought is all people who want to partner are treated equally under the Federal Government, that then the term “marriage” should be a religious thing. The only thing that defines Man and Woman as married is Religion, and the State and definitely the Government should stay out of the terminology as there aught to be a separation as stated in the US Constitution.

Well, I was in the middle of a battle tonight which when I thought I was championing people and being equal mined apparently I was under the witch hunt.

It is not about legal to either side but the word “marriage”. I do not get it. If a non-same sex couple gets married by well lets say a ship captain. They are not legally married, so you can not call them that? Or but can you? Both sides this evening said that is marriage.( the being married by the Captain) I say it is not a legal marriage only a warm fuzzy therein, that really is meaningless unless both couples just feel like saying: oh we just got married. There is no legal document that states legal thought process.

Why am I failing to get what the deal is? Legal is legal. Marriage is a God thing, that even if same sex couples got the right to call it that, it would never be recognized by the Heteros who think they are the only ones entitled to the name “married”

Why would it be so wrong to make it equal? Every couple applies for a “legal: license” Then if their religion allows, call it married? Good lord, I know a ton of common law not sex and many more same sex couple who have already committed to each other.

This is all about semantics and religion and I am done talking about it as I can not seem to get one way or another with either side.

One last comment, all the Non- same sexers said they would be very okay with legal equal rights for same sex partners; both sides said the word” marriage mattered more than the rights.

Okay after dealing with real crazy friends, I will just agree to disagree and hope that one day the “Word Marriage” will not be just a word, but a state of being. Commitment love for better for worse in sickness and health: My parents have been married for 55 years and my dad has done everything for my Mom who has Parkinson’s for the last 10 years. Do I think he would have done less than if they had not been afforded the right to marry? NO NO NO, Marriage is Labor of Love or ends in a legal dispute, but people partner not excepting a dispute, but a life time of loyalty and love ; which is we should have the legal for ALL to protect the “innocent or stupid or gullible or just down right co-dependant retarded”

Why do we need to legislate love and commitment? What if my parents were same sex; would it then be correct to legislate if something ”hospital wise” happens to my mom; my dad who has partnered with her for 55 years can not be there? Of Course NOT.

Someone please help me understand the semantic “marriage” and why it should matter more that what the definition of marriage means, if afforded all legalities and called the same thing under the United States Law for all who want to enter into a committed relationship.


Woozie said...

Well it's 3 AM (and your children are safe asleep) so I didn't exactly read this entire post, keep that in mind.

Your proposition about making a difference between federal marriage and Jesus marriage is an interesting one and seems like a way to make everybody happy. Problem is some (read:most) churches won't offer Gawd's blessins to the faggots so you'll have most of gay America only federally married, and most of straight America Jesus married. This is getting awfully close to stomping on the 14th amendment.

Marriage is a very tricky issue because the way society is set up, at least American society, church and state meet at the wedding chapel. Unless you're going to eradicate the fags either the church will overpower the state's will or the state will overpower the church's will. I may have something of a vested interest but if things come to this I hope it's the latter.

billy pilgrim said...

maybe the gay community should take the offensive and sponsor a proposition to conduct a full financial audit on all churches every year.

seems fair to me.

Raspootin said...

It would seem the impasse is the word Marriage. Everyone wants to be married.

Straight people don't want gay people afforded the term Married, and Gay people will accept nothing less than the term Married, as Partners is not acceptable.

Woozie, I think there are a number of churches and or ordained, even it is over the internet, Reverends who will perform a same sex marriage. Bottom frustrating line is that even if same sex couples are afforded partnerships and marriages there are always going to be some religious folks who will absolutely reject the term married for anyone other than same sex couples.

It has to start somewhere, it is a complex issue.

BP: I say TAX the churches, balance the budget.

yellowdog granny said...

I don't think it should be about marriage...I think it should be abou equal rights...gays, straights what ever should all have the exact want to read a great post? go to
it's the post that says this is the face of gay adoption..which is why i say it's about equal rights..
think you'll enjoy it..kevin is one of my best blogging buddies and he and his partner have been together for 18 years..they adopted 4 brothers and sisters and the post is in reply to the state of arkansas who make it illegal for single people (straight gay or what ever) to adopt children. so if your sister is killed in arkansas, and her single brother wants to adopt his neices/nephews..he won't be able to...check it out

Raspootin said...

Thanks Ydgrand I will check it out.

I guess why I am so confused is that the fighting point with my straight and Gay Friends was about wanting to be defined and recognized as married, and the legal thing really was not as important to them.

I agree with you, off to read your friends post.

tsduff said...

I have had a lot of recent conversations with friends and family since the heated issue of Prop 8 went down. I have troubles, I'm certainly no debater. I feel extremely strongly that people are people no matter what the heck their sexual orientation may be, and it really makes no difference whatsoever about what kind of person they are. For anybody to be discriminated against because of sexual preference is horrendously obnoxious.

Raspootin said...

Well said tsduff. Unfortunately the religious aspects mixed with the legal make this who issue sticky.

If Prop 8 had been a legal partnership law, affording all Federal rights, I think it would have passed with no problem.

You throw the religion in there, and well, there are some people who will go down dying saying same sex marriages are not of God and against their faith.

I dont know, a tough nut to crack.

Anonymous said...

I've had this very argument before, and I've decided that the problem is how fraught with meaning the word "marriage" is. I think it just sounds legitinmate to people in a way that domestic partnership and the like do not. But you can't force a religious group to legitimaize something they disgaree with. Even if you find their reasons for disgareeing to be appalling and narrow-mninded. There are churches that won't marry folks who have been divorced. Frankly, I wouldn't want soemone with those views to perfomr my second marriage (should I ever decide to do that). So, maybe there ought to be legal marriage, since the word is so important to people, and religious marriage. The legal marriage would provide all the rights and benefits and protections and the religious marriage could be a service in the chucch, temple or whatever that sancitons the marriage in that particular faith tradition. Any couple could obtain a legal marriage through the state, and also any couple could obtsian a religious marrriage through whatever church is agreeable or just have a non church-based ceremony with their friends. Win-win, as far as I can see.

Raspootin said...

That is why I was saying that people all couples should get a "legal document" then if they want to Marry, find someone to marry them. Tons of Ordainded Reverands and Ministers if one can not find a church to perform the marriage vows. I understand what you are saying about a legal state marriage license, but all the "narrow" minded straight folks I know say that they would never vote for anything that has the term Marriage in it for same sex couples. That is what the big problem is; and it would seem my gay friends are equally narrow by saying they want a state document that says Marriage not partnership. It is kind of a topsy tervy problem, that one group is going to have to compromise on to get it done.

I think that the Federal Government should mandate "legal documents" that must be signed for all people regardless of same or not same sex couples, if the couples want legal rights. Then it would be up to the respective partners to find a church or individual to marry them.

I dont know, the whole thing makes my head hurt because I tend to think both groups are being hard- headed.