California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned

[Heald]

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10875094)

Another twist in the continuing saga that is equal rights in the USA. Although Prop 8 has been overturned by a federal judge, this could and probably will go all the way to the top. A Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage could be within years now. Will the USA join the likes of civilised nations that allow same-sex unions/marriages or will it conform with the likes of barbaric theocracies such as those in the Middle-East and Africa?

[Telume]

Not until they accept Evolution as part of school curriculum

:lol:

[Samchu]

I'd definitely like to see it become a union recognised across the US but I can't see it happening any time soon. Perhaps not even in my lifetime. The fact that Prop 8 even came into effect and that it took 2 years to get to this stage of appeals I fear is a reflection of this.

[Heald]

I actually find it incredible that the country that brought us such brilliant technological advances still teaches Creationism as a serious scientific theory in schools.

I'd definitely like to see it become a union recognised across the US but I can't see it happening any time soon. Perhaps not even in my lifetime. The fact that Prop 8 even came into effect and that it took 2 years to get to this stage of appeals I fear is a reflection of this.
That's what they said about segregation and civil rights for black Americans. Then it took a stubborn woman to not get out of her seat on a bus to spark a revolution.

Society is gradually getting more liberal, but it would be nice if all the racists, homophobes, sexists and other proponents of discrimination and hate would just realise how idiotic and pointless their prejudices are. A lot of time and money is being spent on such a pointless issue just because Neocon Joe and his Tea Party/Sarah Palin-loving buddies hate queers.

[Telume]

How much of a difference is there between a straight person and a gay? Nothing!

There's only 1 thing, they just prefer people of their gender. It's like they're making it a crime to love someone.

There's homosexuality in the animal kingdom, why should humans be any different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[shazza]

In 100 or so years from now the people of tomorrow will look back on our current debate surrounding gay marriage as primitive, ignorant and ill-informed just as most of us today look back at black slaves in the 1800's.

[Katie]

I actually find it incredible that the country that brought us such brilliant technological advances still teaches Creationism as a serious scientific theory in schools.

To be fair I don't think it's taught/mentioned as much as the media makes it seem. I went to high school in the Bible Belt and I was taught only (simplified) evolution. (TANGENT ALERT: I think a lot of misconceptions about evolution could be cleared up if the books didn't focus so much on the evidence and more on the theory - I would jump for joy if high schoolers were required to be tested over allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium before graduating instead of whale fin structure ~= bird wing structure ~= human arm structure)

I'm for legalizing gay marriage, or at least abolishing the term "marriage" in all government matters (taxes, medical) and replacing it with "union" and then leaving it up to the churches to decide when someone is "married." Separation of church and state has been blurred here, we should let bigoted churches disallow "marriage" to gays, and let accepting churches to go ahead with it. Everybody wins, except people who would *gasp* be forced to acknowledge their bigotry in any argument ever.

[Deadwood_Zen]

Most of the graduating Senior class this past year have not even completed Geometry, or English III, but still are allowed to college because of this religious bullshit


Fight ignorance with knowledge, and over time, the truely wrong with fall...'

[shazza]

Fight ignorance with knowledge, and over time, the truely wrong with fall...'

Enjoy your fall, bro.

[Drago]

Funny how this should be popping up the very day I arrive here in California. I really hope America can finally topple the archaic ultra-conservatives who can't let society progress. The same kinds of fools who once said that women are inferior, or people of other races are inferior. I mean, those fools do still exist, but their voices are so insignificant and ignorant... I look forward to a time when homosexuality is just a part of who someone is, instead of a legal and social issue. Why should I care who you're attracted to? Do I question the sexual desires of every heterosexual person?

...Right. Strange tangent.

Anyway, I hope there's a feeling of elation among the gay community in San Francisco - it'd be neat to be part of the experience while I'm here!

[MToolen]

I happen to agree with Katie on the separation of church and state point. Unions could be legal and offer as many tax and civil benefits/responsibilities/burdens that current marriages do; marriages could be a separate thing entirely, a celebration of a couple's lifelong commitment to each other and to God (or their god, whatever) as their religious entity deems it appropriate.

I like to think we had civil, appropriate discussion in my high school Bio class on both evolution and creation. I don't quite recall the outcome (after all, it was probably during a concert or performance week and the only music ensemble in high school I wasn't directly involved in was the girl's choir), but I do remember hearing, at least briefly, about both sides before continuing with more worksheets and experiments with flies.

[Heald]

Get hitched in San Franny DragoKnight; fight the POWAH!

Oh wait, you're one of the few Australians on this board who isn't gay :\

On the point of differentiating between unions and marriage, I don't know where I stand on this. Taking marriage out of the legal and civil system entirely and making it purely a cosmetic issue that a couple can decide to call themselves (i.e. whether they call themselves a marriage or a union) is probably the best way forward. I seem to remember a story in the UK where a hetero-couple challenged the UK law that only same-sex couples had access to civil unions, as they wanted a union rather than a marriage. I think it was some kind of protest of the 'separate but equal' system that the UK has. Here, I think the law is heteros get married, whereas same-sex couples are in a civil union, but I don't think the legal and civil benefits differ at all.

[Master Rudy]

Heh.....the only reason why I would never run for political office is this debate right here. Sadly the Republican party would never allow a guy that supports this to get into office.

Yeah you right that right :P

One of the few subjects I actually don't agree with my party on. "On no! Two men are kissing one another! Those women want to have sex with one another! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!"

Seriously guys who gives a fuck? It's not hurting me or you so why stop it? It's not like the gay community went out and killed anyone. They are people too and I feel like no one should have a right to tell someone who they can and can't be with.

[RedStarWarrior]

Anyone who votes no is asking for a ban by Andy since Heald made the poll public. :D

[Drago]

I don't foresee anyone voting no, though I would be very interested to hear their stance.

[Gavin Luper]

I was so happy to hear about this.

Part of me hopes the homophobes don't appeal and just let it be; and yet, another part of me kind of wants to see it go to the Supreme Court in the hope that it will be declared unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage and therefore create some kind of across-the-board policy for the whole nation.

Otherwise, going state-by-state, can you imagine how long it would take? I think it's only seven states atm that have legalized gay marriage ... long way to go!

Sigh ... why is Australia so backwards?


I don't foresee anyone voting no, though I would be very interested to hear their stance.

I've yet to hear anything close to a sound argument against gay marriage, so yeah, me too, Tony!

[Blademaster]

If you moved this topic to Mt. Moon it might get a few "No's."

Actually, that's a lie. I doubt it would even there, for some reason.

[Dryk]

It's gonna take forever to reach Texas and Louisiana, you can be sure of that.

And on the subject of tangents of evolution; I was taught allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium... I couldn't even tell you what a whale's fin structure looked like, unless you were making a point about homology or whatever. Anyway, this was all in a private Catholic school. ;)

[Telume]

I honestly don't see a reason to vote no to gay marriage. What's the difference really? "Oh I like my gender so I automatically do not have the same rights."

Religion?

SINCE WHEN HAS RELIGION EVER WORKED TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING SENSIBLE?

Take a look back at history, homosexuality was in a lot of places and I'm damn sure it wasn't looked down upon as badly then as it is now.

[Deadwood_Zen]

It's a natural part of nature, too. Religion is just another one of mankind's greatest flaws. I don't mind spiritual beliefs, or rationalizing what we can't explain, but religion has always just been an easy to power, and a way to manipulate the weak-minded.

[Heald]

It's not so much as religion as right-wing nutjobs using religion to justify their horrible agenda against humanity and equality. People don't seem to care about all the charity and humanitarian work and aid done in the name of a religion, but are quick to blame it when it conveniences them.

Politicians and pressure groups who use religion to justify an agenda of hate are terrible, terrible people. Instead of living their life as their religion advises, they use it as a weapon. These people don't serve a god, they are making their god serve them.

[Telume]

It's not so much as religion as right-wing nutjobs using religion to justify their horrible agenda against humanity and equality. People don't seem to care about all the charity and humanitarian work and aid done in the name of a religion, but are quick to blame it when it conveniences them.

Politicians and pressure groups who use religion to justify an agenda of hate are terrible, terrible people. Instead of living their life as their religion advises, they use it as a weapon. These people don't serve a god, they are making their god serve them.

What's worse is the politicians twistings words to make the law sound like something we should vote for.

For example, during elections sometimes laws are put into a vote and sometimes they're put into the ballot as "Protecting lawful marriage" when in reality all its doing is banning same-sex marriages.

[Heald]

Why does lawful marriage need protecting anyway?

An excuse I often hear trotted out by opponents of equal rights is that homosexuality has led to the perversion and downfall of society and the family unit, when it is almost always that their policies (or the policies they support) have failed and homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat, much like blacks, illegal immigrants and poor people are.

[Katie]

It's gonna take forever to reach Texas and Louisiana, you can be sure of that.

And on the subject of tangents of evolution; I was taught allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium... I couldn't even tell you what a whale's fin structure looked like, unless you were making a point about homology or whatever. Anyway, this was all in a private Catholic school. ;)

Wow I'm impressed. I grew up Catholic and with their worship style it seemed to me like they'd be the first ones in line to Bible-up any argument, but more and more evidence points to the crazies actually being in the other denominations. I like your school. A lot. And yes I was referring to homology. See picture (http://iam4siam.com/creation/pics/homology.jpg) (That website is pretty wtf though)

[firepokemon]

Well I'll be the first one to vote No I guess. I find the idea that gay people want to have equal rights to marriage as absurd. All such debates simply stigmatises de-facto rights. It places the debate around equal rights around the traditional ideal of marriage. How that means equal rights is beyond me. It means instead of providing legislation that strengthen de-facto rights it means laws are passed where either a marriage or a civil union is required to enjoy those rights.

That in my opinion is a mistake and why I am entirely against the idea of providing marriage rights to gay people. It also reinforces marriage or marriage-like registration of relationships as the hegemonic family structure which I personally find disturbing.

[Deadwood_Zen]

Your definition of 'Traditional Marriage' is out of date. This is a new age, there is so much ahead of us as a race, we just need to learn to accept each other. Part of that is allowing everyone equal rights. What makes homosexuals any different from heterosexuals? We all bleed the same, just one prefers members of their own gender. So what?

But I still completely respect your right to think that, everyone's entitle to their own opinion(no matter how wrong they may be, lol jk xP). I could use a good debate anyway ;]

[firepokemon]

Because making homosexual marriage simply reinforces society's view of marriage as the NORMAL relationship. When society in the 21st Century should be respecting all and different relationships between man and woman, woman and woman or man and man. Simply proscribing marriage rights to homosexual couples does not itself provide equal rights. It simply continues to reinforce marriage as the normal relationship structure.

That is a mistake. It means relationships in society continue to be ritualised. Marriage is by itself simply a ritual. A ritual that today for most people means spending crap on a fucking ceremony. Relationships should not require ritualisation. Relationships should be just that a relationship between people. That should not require a ritual, a ceremony or a registration.

[Oslo]

I find your view refreshing, Firepokemon. There's this social paradigm that, if you don't have that glitzy wedding ceremony or sign that document or define your relationship as society expects it to be defined, you're committing some grave taboo. Personally, I haven't decided whether I want to define the relationship I plan on having with my future significant other in that specific way, but I'm open to either avenue. :)

However, I do disagree with you on one count.


Simply proscribing marriage rights to homosexual couples does not itself provide equal rights. It simply continues to reinforce marriage as the normal relationship structure.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I'd say it accomplishes both.

[RedStarWarrior]

Well I'll be the first one to vote No I guess. I find the idea that gay people want to have equal rights to marriage as absurd. All such debates simply stigmatises de-facto rights. It places the debate around equal rights around the traditional ideal of marriage. How that means equal rights is beyond me. It means instead of providing legislation that strengthen de-facto rights it means laws are passed where either a marriage or a civil union is required to enjoy those rights.

That in my opinion is a mistake and why I am entirely against the idea of providing marriage rights to gay people. It also reinforces marriage or marriage-like registration of relationships as the hegemonic family structure which I personally find disturbing.
Yes, but the rights you are granted by the marriage are what is important. If they made civil unions as powerful as marriages, then I would agree with your point of view.

[Gavin Luper]

FP: Regardless of whether marriage is being pushed as the "ideal" version of a relationship or not, it still should be equally accessible to all couples, straight or gay, because the legal rights that come with it are what matters. And a gay couple getting married doesn't threaten de facto rights any more than it threatens a straight couple's marriage - that is, not at all.

Even if marriage is a ritualisation, so what? Some people like rituals and some people don't. We should live in a society that gives everyone the freedom to choose what kind of recognition they would like, without taking away anyone else's rights. If I want to marry my boyfriend, I should be allowed to do that. If I don't like marriage and want to have a de-facto relationship with my boyfriend, I should be allowed to do that, too. Neither option should be banned for any couple, be they gay or straight.

In the end I don't think you're making a valid argument against gay marriage, you're more just making an argument against marriage in general, which is really a separate issue to the poll question, which asks whether you support equal rights for gay couples.

[crown34]

Yes, but the rights you are granted by the marriage are what is important. If they made civil unions as powerful as marriages, then I would agree with your point of view.

Yes,but aren't civil unions and marriage both as powerful? You both share a house, you, manage your finances equally and both love each other. So what is the big diffrence?

[Samchu]

Yes,but aren't civil unions and marriage both as powerful? You both share a house, you, manage your finances equally and both love each other. So what is the big diffrence?

To answer your question I provide the following:

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is not recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm). These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

[crown34]

Sigh, I have got to read in more detail what I post.

[Mew Master]

Wow... where to begin?

On topic, I'm glad this got overturned. The passing of Prop 8 was a blow from the religious right's anti-anything-not-Christian bag of tricks (and the Right-Wing has helped since the Religious Right's so far down in their pockets they're giving hand-jobs), and obviously so. It could be viewed as analogous to the “Separate but Equal” tactic of the South and pre-Civil Rights America, only worse.

If marriage is viewed as part of the normal life-cycle for humans, particularly Americans where there is a social stigmata surrounding marriage (where I'll agree with you there firepokemon), and the status it gives. If the society views that as a certain rank or accomplishment, then being unable to receive or attain that rank/accomplishment interferes with the rights of the members of that society, and thus, denies them their “certain inalienable rights,” then the practice of denying the accomplishment is wrong and should be abolished. It's a 'glass ceiling' anti-American, and not humane because you're treating your fellow human beings as less than what they are.

Many of my responses to quotes are comments or sarcastic responses, whether I agree with you or not.


Will the USA join the likes of civilised nations that allow same-sex unions/marriages or will it conform with the likes of barbaric theocracies such as those in the Middle-East and Africa?

With the Republican's in charge we're just a stone-throw away from a theocracy. Bush proved it during his '8 years of stupidity' and it is always a threat of happening as long as we have religious fundamentalists backing up politicians and running for office themselves.


Not until they accept Evolution as part of school curriculum

Oh you have NO idea...


Society is gradually getting more liberal, but it would be nice if all the racists, homophobes, sexists and other proponents of discrimination and hate would just realise how idiotic and pointless their prejudices are. A lot of time and money is being spent on such a pointless issue just because Neocon Joe and his Tea Party/Sarah Palin-loving buddies hate queers.

Well, and the fact that the Tea Party movement is filled with those homophobes, sexists, right-wing religious nut jobs, and anything else that's for keeping the status quo. These guys are so easy to manipulate. Just say “Socialist, Nazi, Czar,” and it gets em rilled up and onto a protest. Ever see these guy's signs? They can't even spell, the don't know the difference between fascism, socialism, and nazism, because they've been taught all their lives that these things are 'evil' and must be fought at every turn. This seems to be the case, my Step-Dad honestly falls into this boat.

Anything that Fox News and other Right-Wing Propoganda mills spew out, they eat it up.


How much of a difference is there between a straight person and a gay? Nothing!

There's only 1 thing, they just prefer people of their gender. It's like they're making it a crime to love someone.

There's homosexuality in the animal kingdom, why should humans be any different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

If anything the homophobia is spawned by a combination of religious teachings and our natural fear of the unknown. Homosexuality isn't a choice, like fashion. It's a genetic deposition of attraction to a member of the same gender. It's as natural to be as I am tall, fat, and black haired.

Might also have to do something with the view that humans are better than everything else. Just a thought.


To be fair I don't think it's taught/mentioned as much as the media makes it seem. I went to high school in the Bible Belt and I was taught only (simplified) evolution.

I went to school in Kansas. In fact, I'm still in Kansas (only in college)[/sarcasm]

Actually at the latest Kansas Academy of Sciences meeting, someone presented on the teaching of evolution and Creationism, of the 500-some teachers questioned, only 99 replied, and of them, it was overwhelming that they taught evolution with no inkling of creationism. If it was considered to be taught, it was more suggested that it should be in a class on science history, or society, or philosophy, but not science.

I really don't remember going over evolution in High School. To be honest, our Biology teacher said “I don't agree with Evolution, but I'm required to teach it” to which I give him some credit. Really the only thing I learned about evolution was genetics and ecology, and the two kinda clicked together. My Evolution class in college taught me all the theory and my Paleontology and specific Biology courses gave me more to work with.


(TANGENT ALERT: I think a lot of misconceptions about evolution could be cleared up if the books didn't focus so much on the evidence and more on the theory - I would jump for joy if high schoolers were required to be tested over allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium before graduating instead of whale fin structure ~= bird wing structure ~= human arm structure)

As much as I'd like to see this, High Schools are under a lot of stress to teach a lot of material in a short amount of time. Part of the reason they teach the evidence is because without that, the theory won't make sense. What I WOULD love to see is a strong distinction between hypothesis, laws, and theories.

Oh, and btw. Punctuated equilibrium = Phylogenetic Gradualism on a massive scale with an incomplete Geologic and biologic record. :D


I'm for legalizing gay marriage, or at least abolishing the term "marriage" in all government matters (taxes, medical) and replacing it with "union" and then leaving it up to the churches to decide when someone is "married." Separation of church and state has been blurred here, we should let bigoted churches disallow "marriage" to gays, and let accepting churches to go ahead with it. Everybody wins, except people who would *gasp* be forced to acknowledge their bigotry in any argument ever.

I agree that if Civil Unions were recognized on the same level as marriage, in taxes and other spots, we might be able to avoid a lot of this, however it's also probably the thing of being able to say “We're married,” as opposed to “We're unionized.”


Heh.....the only reason why I would never run for political office is this debate right here. Sadly the Republican party would never allow a guy that supports this to get into office.

Yeah you right that right

One of the few subjects I actually don't agree with my party on. "On no! Two men are kissing one another! Those women want to have sex with one another! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!"

Seriously guys who gives a fuck? It's not hurting me or you so why stop it? It's not like the gay community went out and killed anyone. They are people too and I feel like no one should have a right to tell someone who they can and can't be with.

No problem with that fact, other than several of your own political party for “traditional family values” (i.e. Man + Woman marriages) are also caught with gay lovers or drunk in gay bars. Hypocrisy much?

Oh, and btw, on your Avatar thar Rudy. Socialism isn't that bad of a system, just look at our Fire Departments, police departments, and public school systems. Stop listening to Fox News try to define political positions.


SINCE WHEN HAS RELIGION EVER WORKED TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING SENSIBLE?

Since.... Never.


Take a look back at history, homosexuality was in a lot of places and I'm damn sure it wasn't looked down upon as badly then as it is now.

Homosexuality has had a place in history, the Greeks, Japanese, and even ancient Babylonian had homosexual relationships between men. Hell, even the Bible has male-male relationships that boarder on homosexual (your Rule 34 may vary).


It's not so much as religion as right-wing nutjobs using religion to justify their horrible agenda against humanity and equality.

Hence, the American Republican Party.

Keep your religion outta your politics.


What's worse is the politicians twistings words to make the law sound like something we should vote for.

Like I heard on Fox News the other day:

“House Speaker's Nanci Pelosi's investigation into the group against building the Mosque near Ground Zero. Is Pelosi against free speech?”

My reaction: WHAT?!

Really loud.

In the lobby.

Of a hospital.


Wow I'm impressed. I grew up Catholic and with their worship style it seemed to me like they'd be the first ones in line to Bible-up any argument, but more and more evidence points to the crazies actually being in the other denominations.

Actually one of my friends is Catholic, and he knows more about Cladistics than any other Grad Student in the Department! He's also the first to make fun of Creationists. Catholics have their own problems when it comes towards things (alter boy molestations, preists taking advantage of their position, barring Homosexuals from serving the church [see first list option]).


Because making homosexual marriage simply reinforces society's view of marriage as the NORMAL relationship. When society in the 21st Century should be respecting all and different relationships between man and woman, woman and woman or man and man.

Does this include having mistresses, fuck-buddies, or an age gap between said man and woman? I agree with you, but there are other issues which others will disagree with you, and you may even disagree with yourself. Just saying, if it's any kind of relationship...


Marriage is by itself simply a ritual. A ritual that today for most people means spending crap on a fucking ceremony. Relationships should not require ritualisation.

And the ritual of marriage is what some are after. The aspect of the ritual itself is what couples want, to them it makes the union more.... meaningful (of course those that get a divorce six years later have another opinion on the matter). And there are the families to be considered. Though really it's not what they want, they influence it anyway.

Also, it can be argued that relationships themselves are ritualized themselves. The first date, the first kiss, the roses and chocolate, the dates, sex, all that. It's part of the human mating ritual.

And all the reasons why Unions aren't equal to marriage have been listed so....

I'm done. o.o

[Telume]

As usual, long long list of responses

But to respond to your comment Mew Master

Back in November of '08 when presidential elections were taking place, this is here in Florida for those who are wondering

At the same time of the election votes for several possible laws were taking place, one of them was
detailed with "To protect marriages" which is political innuendo for "outlaw gay marriages".
How do I know?

That's the innuendo used by politicians because as a person you would probably think: "OH, protecting marriage? Sure I'll vote in favor of it."

Not surprisingly, the law got 72% of votes in favor.

[Mew Master]

But to respond to your comment Mew Master

Back in November of '08 when presidential elections were taking place, this is here in Florida for those who are wondering

At the same time votes for several laws among time one of them was
"To protect marriages" which is political innuendo for "outlaw gay marriages".
How do I know?

That's the innuendo used by politicians because as a person you would probably think: "OH, protecting marriage? Sure I'll vote in favor of it."

Not surprisingly, the law got 72% of votes in favor.

Of course. Politics is all about controling the public dialogue and word-play.

[abunaidesu]

my mom hates gay people and my sister is gay

whoops

[Magmar]

In 100 or so years from now the people of tomorrow will look back on our current debate surrounding gay marriage as primitive, ignorant and ill-informed just as most of us today look back at black slaves in the 1800's.

In Rhode Island, we will be voting this fall on whether to remove 'And Providence Plantations' from our state name "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". Why? Because it seems to insinuate slavery. Because plantation = farm = slaves, especially in one of the most liberal states in the country.

Thus, if you own a farm, you condone slavery. We should abandon farming as it sparks painful memories of slavery, which hasn't been in Rhode Island for HUNDREDS of years.

[Jeff]

What? Really?

Do people there even know their history? The "and Providence Plantations" part goes back to when Rhode Island was a colony. Rhode Island was just an island, the rest of the colony was the "Providence Plantations" part. So that's why the full name is that way, because there was more to the place than just Rhode Island the island, not because they supported slavery.

[Mew Master]

That may be the case thar Zak, but it's the connection to slavery that plantations hold in the public eye which is bringing about the change.

[Razola]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, you silly fucks.

Evolution has been a part of the science curriculum in the USA for a good while now. There's only a few wayword schools that try to squirm around it.

[Razola]

Because making homosexual marriage simply reinforces society's view of marriage as the NORMAL relationship. When society in the 21st Century should be respecting all and different relationships between man and woman, woman and woman or man and man. Simply proscribing marriage rights to homosexual couples does not itself provide equal rights. It simply continues to reinforce marriage as the normal relationship structure.

That is a mistake. It means relationships in society continue to be ritualised. Marriage is by itself simply a ritual. A ritual that today for most people means spending crap on a fucking ceremony. Relationships should not require ritualisation. Relationships should be just that a relationship between people. That should not require a ritual, a ceremony or a registration.This is patently absurd. There are a variety of ways to redefine relationships without dicking people over.

Let me put it this way: denying the expansion of marriage is not going to help your cause one shitty bit. The people on that side like their narrow perspective, and not supporting this one broadening of definition will make it that much harder to broaden it in the future. You may say "I'm against it because I'm against all marriage." but history will see it overwhelmingly as "Oh, I guess that IS the one and ultimate relationship."

In other words: if we can convince people that man marriage isn't the end of the world, we can continue to push for alternatives to romantic relationships such as polygamy.

Ceremony is completely irrelevant to the discussion. There is not a damn thing wrong with celebrating the establishment of a long-term commitment. If anything, it's a positive for local economies. If you don't want nor need to do that, fine: the government never has and still doesn't give a shit. Yes, it's popular, and probably always will be. That's a human thing: our species generally couples for the long-term. There is going to be a natural trend towards that reflecting in our cultures.

Registration is important because there are numerous legal issues, especially concerning children. Again, nobody is forcing you to register. My friend's aunt and uncle have been together for decades without ever registering or having a wedding (be it formal or otherwise).