Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

I personally would be fine with that approach, but I understand there would be objections. I was proposing two different types, one called a "union" (or any agreed upon label) and the other called a "marriage."--Percy

Separate but equal?Enjoy

Perhaps you don't remember when this argument was supposedly all about the economic benefits of marriage, which should be well enough dealt with by a legal union that aimed to guarantee such benefits. Now we're told no, it's all about dignity, being treated like heterosexuals. It never was about just benefits. Or for that matter even about dignity. It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage and you can find gay activists saying that in so many words.

Then it's been an abject failure; men and women who wish to marry seem largely oblivious to this dire threat.

quote:

---

Perhaps you don't remember when this argument was supposedly all about the economic benefits of marriage, which should be well enough dealt with by a legal union that aimed to guarantee such benefits

---

It is about the secular, legal benefits of marriage because that is all that the law can deal with. I guess that you misunderstood RAZD's comment which is a reference to racial segregation - and we know how "equal" that was. Just as we know that at least some of the opponents of gay marriage will use the difference to deny gays the benefits if they are given a separate status from marriage.

quote:

---

Now we're told no, it's all about dignity, being treated like heterosexuals. It never was about just benefits. Or for that matter even about dignity

---

No, it's being pointed out that your preferred approach is fraught with difficulties, which the Supreme Court has dealt with at a stroke. New legislation would be needed, including many adjustments to existing legislation, with the opposition taking every opportunity to delay it or wreck it or to deny the benefits you say that you are prepared to accept.If your only complaint is that you don't like gay unions being called marriages then you don't really have much of an objection. Your personal likes and dislikes are simply not that important, compared to the very real benefits. They should not even be that important to you, never mind anyone else.

quote:

---

It's always been about destroying the institution of marriage and you can find gay activists saying that in so many words.

---

It would be an incredibly stupid way of destroying marriage. There are even ways in which it strengthens marriage.

Kim Davis and I, as thrice-divorced heterosexuals, did our best to destroy marriage, but failed miserably--though she's still trying, while I've hung up my spurs. I think marriage will survive us both.I could get another license from Ms. Davis without quarrel, even though the Kentucky license application requires me to state how many marriages I've abandoned. Clearly, my second and third marriages, like her second through fourth, contradict God's one-man/one-woman, indissoluble union doctrine.There is nothing like having skin in the game to liberalize one's position on divorce and adultery. Instead of being stoned as an adulterer, I, too, could hitch up my hypocrisy and hate to a Christian media-martyr wagon. Is this a great country or what? But apparently you cannot. Which you will redefine.

So you have quotes on this conspiracy to destroy marriage by gay activists. Please do share.Caution. If your definition of "destroy" is merely enlarging the pool of eligible unions under the umbrella of marriage then you will be rejected.

Curiously, I don't see any drop off in people getting married ... can you show any sudden drop off since this Supreme Court decision? Please do so. (not holding my breath). Indeed, AND how it was morally offensive to deny those benefits to a class of people, AND how that could only be guaranteed by including gay marriage in the human family of married people ... because anything less would be like the failed "Separate but equal" treatment of blacks at the beginning of the '60's civil rights movements. Because it never was equal.Enjoy

Curiously you are nuts and a half to think anybody meant it would happen right away. Give it a generation. HERE'S a Google page on the subject.Blacks find the comparison offensive and so do I.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I predict that it will start to happen just after the rapture. That's a page of gloom and doom predictions by the opponents of gay marriage.When did the Christian message change from "We bring you tidings of great joy" to doom and gloom?

quote:

---

Curiously you are nuts and a half to think anybody meant it would happen right away. Give it a generation

---

Of course there is no sensible reason to think that it will happen at all.And it seems that one lesbian activist wants to change the legalities further to reflect polyamorous relationships. As do some straights. Hardly a sign that the struggle for gay marriage is about destroying it. The views of one person I've never heard of before just aren't that significant.

quote:

---

Blacks find the comparison offensive and so do I.

---

Only the bigots are offended.

That's the ultimate cop-out. Hint: In a generation, you won't be here to be proven wrong.Allow me to prophesy: In a generation there will be a Bigfoot in the White House. A gay Bigfoot. A fundamentalist Christian gay Bigfoot.

Or wait for the second coming? It seems Christians are great at predicting things that never come to pass ... curiously I will wait for some evidence while enjoying the spectacularly gay drama of Christians weeping and moaning rending their clothes and dumping ashes on their heads. That all seems to involve one single individual who says that allowing two gays to marry is not going far enough. In articles written for gullible bigoted Christians ... I mean Glenn Beck ... really???One person does not make a movement. Got anything else? Again: documentation? source?Curiously I have seen blacks from the civil rights movement agree that this is discrimination against a class of people, that they are not being treated equally.Enjoy

Congressman John Lewis is the last surviving member of the Big Six. He writes: But yeah, he only spoke alongside King at the March on Washington, what would he know about the '60's civil rights movement? You should write to him on behalf of "blacks" telling him how offensive they find him.

Some blacks do find the comparison offensive, while others do not. Largely the ones that find the comparison are just as unsympathetic with gays desire for marriage equality as any bigot. As funky as it seems, blacks and Latinos are more likely to be fundamentalists and gay haters as white people; in this country at least, but probably world wide.But there is no mistaking the role of Ms. Davis here. Kim Davis is 'George Wallace', standing in the doorway and using her power as a government official to deny rights to a despised minority. [1] The parallel is pretty close to inescapable for anyone without their head up their butt.If you are against marriage equality and find the parallel uncomfortable or ugly or are 'offended', too effing bad. The exact purpose of the parallel is to make you feel that way and worse. In some people it might even produce guilt. It is also the case that people who supported Wallace's position were every bit as sure that they were on the right side of history as are those against gay marriage now. We need not consider the feelings of the angry/offended in determining whether the accusation of hatred is apt.And seriously, the question was never about the economic benefits alone. It was also about social benefits like testifying about your partners life/death decisions without the deceased family interfering just as my wife can do for me, and being named on the death certificate (which is what the case that came to the Supreme Court was actually about) and having a say in raising your children after a divorce. Those benefits are not just about money, they are about life and they are tied up in thousands of little local laws all across the 50 states. Well all of that is now cleaned up in a single stroke.[1] Not entirely my own wording. See article by Raushenbush here: No, Kim Davis Is Not Martin Luther King, Jr. | HuffPost Religion.Edited by NoNukes, : Provide needed attribution