Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_gay_marriage_maine;_ylt=AmZeIYCF0tDSmm1SHENjpCmyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtbGVlZzZiBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTA0L3VzX2dheV9tYXJyaWFnZV9tYWluZQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDbWFpbmV2b3RlcnNy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_gay_marriage_maine;_ylt=AmZeIYCF0tDSmm1SHENjpCmyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtbGVlZzZiBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTA0L3VzX2dheV9tYXJyaWFnZV9tYWluZQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDbWFpbmV2b3RlcnNy)

Again, segregation would have gotten the same popular vote. It's god damn tragic what animals live in this country.

I think the tactic has to change. Stop focusing on having the word "marriage" approved and change it to "same sex union" or "domestic partnership" and having all the same rights as those that are "hetrosexually married". Seriously. There is too much tie of religion and gov't to be able to get it passed. Let people get used to it and then they'll wonder why there is a difference.

The "best" solution is to keep the legal rights and priviledges as a contract with the state. That is to say, that the legal part is simply legal. And the religious part is simply religious.
Everyone has to get a "civil union" (straight or gay or whatev) through a legal contract, but whoever wants can have a "marriage ceremony" with whichever church/religious organ that allows it.

If I'm able to articulate what I mean correctly that is..

Question: Why hasn't the ACLU filed suits against the use of the term "marriage" based upon a representation of religious sacrament and sanction by "public governing bodies" in the issuance of a wedding license, within all of the 50 states?

After all, they seem to win hands down on any other religious connotations exercised by government institutions, i.e. school prayer, Christmas decorations and posting The Ten Commandments. ???


Dawn 

Re: what Linus and Miniar posted above, I have been thinking almost the exact same thing.

Actually polling data shows that with exceptions the majority of Americans favor "civil unions."

Quote from: Miniar on November 04, 2009, 09:22:36 AM
The "best" solution is to keep the legal rights and priviledges as a contract with the state. That is to say, that the legal part is simply legal. And the religious part is simply religious.
Everyone has to get a "civil union" (straight or gay or whatev) through a legal contract, but whoever wants can have a "marriage ceremony" with whichever church/religious organ that allows it.

We had a big discussion on this once here.  What most people do not seem to realize is that the state is the one who grants permission to marry in all cases.  There are no exceptions.  All couples must obtain a marriage license from their local government entity.  After that everyone has a choice of having a religious or secular ceremony.    A religious wedding is in no way a requirement to be legally married.  Furthermore, each individual religious organization is free to conduct, or not conduct, weddings according to their particular beliefs.  Technically, the wedding only becomes legal when that license is returned to the government and approved.  But again, no one is legally required to married in any religion, not is anyone denied their religious freedom to do so.  What we have in America is a very fair system. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

The problem is anti-gay marriage groups are telling everyone that their religious freedoms will be taken away or that churches will HAVE to marry gays.  Crap like that.  And their sheep have been swallowing that hook, line and sinker.

It just shows you, exaggeration and fabrication are still very effective campaign tactics.

Julie