Comments on: “Why do you need the word marriage?”

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:21:08 +0000

I don’t want to marry either (my feelings are moot in this case, anyway, because I’m single), but I do want to have the option open, because (a) the decision of whether or not I marry should be made by me (and my hypothetical boyfriend), not made for me by the State, and (b) the option should be open to other same-sex couples who may wish to avail of it for their own reasons (whether those reasons be practical, “bourgeois”, or whatever).

TRiG.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:31:01 +0000

Stephen, I think it was your use of the word “bourgeois”. Most people recognize that the only people who use that word anymore have a certain amount of sanctimony. Also, it’s hard to understand your position. You say you don’t conform, but each time there is a new type of rellationship offered, you take advantage of it. First, a Domestic Partnership, then a Civil Unions, then marriage in a foreign Country, then marriage in New York. For someone who claims they don’t conform, you sure seem to. It’s like keep up with the Smit-Joneses of the world.

It really is NOT hard to see why you would be feeling unpopular here, but when one comes on and says, in fancier terms of course, “You are all Conformist lemmings” well, people tend not to react positively about that. Not to mention that when belittling people for conforming, it’s best not to lay out such a glaring example of your own conformity. Either you conformed in the case of what you did in your relationship, or you are a clone that has to be trendy and have the most recent and updated category of a relationship that’s possible. A non-conformist conformist, complaing that all the people are sheeple.

Must be lonely up there on your pedestal. Glad you have a fellow Domesticated, Civilized, Partner/lover/spouse/husband to keep yoou company.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:29:12 +0000

I don’t seem to be popular.

By: Reed

Reed — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:57:38 +0000

Stephen –
Kindly stop pitching your pearls of wisdom from atop your triply-unioned throne of privilege.
YOU “need” to do a little reality checki.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:37:45 +0000

Regan, you need to relax.

By: Jonathan Justice

Jonathan Justice — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:40:22 +0000

Just to be picky, while it is true that the town name honors the Frankfurt in Germany, the spelling actually given for the city in Indiana is Frankfort. Kentucky’s odd little capitol city had already gotten there by contracting Frank’s Fort.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:52:25 +0000

Stephen, your mindset reminds me a great deal of when The Pill and Women’s liberation changed how the laws pertaining to married women did too. I remember too well the different legal fights in the different states.
And THEN came a famous case in Los Angeles Triolo vs. Marvin, where a longtime live in girlfriend of the actor Lee Marvin sued for a form of support because she gave up her own career to support him during his.
The support was called ‘palimony’.
Now, Marvin had already been married two times, and didn’t want to again. And Ms. Triolo had been once. Some times oft married people opt for cohabitation.
The point is CHOICE.
The libertarian attitude is that marriage is too strictly coded by gov’t anyway.
And that individuals should pretty much set the rules for themselves.
But that is exactly what power of attorney and that tier of legal protection that UNMARRIED people can set for themselves AT THEIR CHOOSING.
Again the point is CHOICE.

But at this point in time, gay couples have NO CHOICE in marrying and the states in which marriage is legal, it’s still collared by DOMA. Leaving it at a different standard of legal protection for gay people than for any other married couple.
The married people in this country are married ANYWHERE in the world.
Married gay couples, are only legally married LOCALLY.
This is all so unworkable and impractical.
Maybe to YOU and quite a few straight people, marriage is a form of social restraint that doesn’t suit.
There was a time when most women were indoctrinated to consider it a DUTY. And THEIR conformity, led to a great deal of socio/political challenge in their own homes.
Marriage for women, became a lot less popular, until the laws changed where a woman gained more autonomy.
In your civil union, you have limits you might find inconvenient depending on needs you haven’t confronted yet.
As long as gay people have NO CHOICE, and at each and every step, the anti gay keep changing up the rules and standards of marriage.
It has to be marriage or the CHOICE not to.

By: rK

rK — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:39:19 +0000

When will friends in support of overturning Prop 8 and DOMA be filed? It seems the haters got every low life to crawl from under their rocks to file in support of them.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:36:06 +0000

Stephen said “I’m constantly surprised by the fantastic pressures here to conform and the fear that non-conformity engenders.”.

Giving gays and lesbians the right to marry in no way pressures them to marry. It sounds like you want to deny gays and lesbians the right to conform through marriage should they choose to do so.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:59:14 +0000

Jay, I don’t agree that civil unions couldn’t achieve that. Not the way they’ve been presented in this country but I thought the French solution was perfectly OK. I write for a living so it’s not to my benefit to feel too included. I don’t speak for anyone else. And as Rob pointed out, this will be of most benefit to young people. And that’s a good thing.

I would like to point out that I’m probably the only commenter here who has actually committed himself to all three variations.