Gay Marriage Part 1 (11/2006 -2/2012)

Life LGBTQ+ Forum
1

oh my

Don’t you just hate getting your hopes up? Why can’t the government just say NO and leave it at that. Like all those people that got married in the USA a while back, just to have it thrown in their faces a couple of weeks later.

A year ago, we celebrated the fact that the government legalised it, but look what happened yesterday…

'Cape Town - The national assembly’s home affairs committee adopted the controversial civil unions bill on Thursday, amid objections from opposition parties and disillusionment from gay and lesbian lobby groups.

Only ANC members of the committee voted in favour of the bill, with opposition parties either abstaining or voting against the legislation.

“This is a messy piece of legislation, and the ANC did not give us an opportunity to go through the bill clause by clause before voting,” said Democratic Alliance spokesperson Tertius Delport, whose party abstained from voting.

The African Christian Democratic Party, which opposed the final draft of the legislation, said it was disappointed with the outcome of the parliamentary process.

“We, together with thousands of people and groups that made submissions to parliament, have consistently stated that same-sex marriage should not be legalised, and that our constitution should be amended to protect the sanctity of marriage,” said party spokesperson Steve Swart.

‘Separate but equal’

The legislation - whose objective is to satisfy the Constitutional Court’s ruling that parliament devise a law affording same-sex couples the same legal status and recognition as married heterosexuals - also drew criticism from the gay and lesbian community.

A gay and lesbian lobby group, the Triangle Project, said the legislation discriminates against gays and lesbians.

“It allows heterosexuals to get married either under this new legislation or the customary Act, while on the other hand it restricts gays and lesbian to this new legislation,” said spokesperson Vista Khalipha.

“In other words the new legislation says we are separate but equal, and to us this is still discrimination.”

‘Historic moment in the country’s democracy’

While the committee’s chairperson, Patrick Chauke, described Thursday’s adoption of the bill as yet another “historic moment in the country’s democracy”, he said he would not be surprised if certain sections of society were unhappy.

"We had to strike the balance between the Constitutional Court ruling and the opinions of various sectors of society.

"We are glad that our people were given the opportunity to express their views on this matter.

He dismissed the DA’s accusation that the voting process was irregular, saying the DA wanted to use the process to introduce a new debate.

“This bill will be tabled at the national assembly on Tuesday, where the DA will get an opportunity to engage in such a debate,” he told Sapa. ’ News24

It’s a real blow to know that people won’t allow me to marry my girlfriend because it they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. Sanctity my arse…how many people remain married? They should make it illegal to get married more than once then! Ghmf. :fume:

Gay Marriage Part 2 (4/2012-11/2013)
2

Gay marriage?!! We let the gays get married, next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to have gay sex!!!

3

My brother and his wife are boycotting marriage. They are married. They got married out of the US. Did not have the US papers done. And will not do so.
I know that it is trivial and doesn’t have any affect, but I think that is a cool way to show thier support.
From what I understand, there is a large amount of others doing the same.

4

[quote=“SuchAFob”]My brother and his wife are boycotting marriage. They are married. They got married out of the US. Did not have the US papers done. And will not do so.
I know that it is trivial and doesn’t have any affect, but I think that is a cool way to show thier support.
From what I understand, there is a large amount of others doing the same.[/quote]

Brad Pitt and Anglelina Jolie are doing it. IMO I don’t think it’s sending a message. The US may lose X amount of dollars from marriage taxes but it really doesn’t rock Congress to the core to get the message. Nor do I think it really supports gays/lesibians in their battle. It’s like going to a LIVE AID concert and afterward you have dinner at Outback.

If Americans really supported gay marriage then I’m certain that marches, floods of emails, or making some sort of big “noise” would really get the whole propsal on the books.

5

Or we could just start by voting for candidates who support equal rights for everyone. I think much of the world has a long way to go in this regard. Certainly, Americans can all start by routinely voting against the Republican party.

6

Or we could just start by voting for candidates who support equal rights for everyone. I think much of the world has a long way to go in this regard. Certainly, Americans can all start by routinely voting against the Republican party. [/i][/quote]

Yes the GOP has some hostile members, but I hardly doubt there isn’t any in the Dems. The whole policitical arena is just hostile to gays.

But on the sunny side of things, You can now get married in Mexico!!! OLE!

7

This is an interesting debate. Is marriage about law or is it about religion?

If its about law, then why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to be married when if by law they are allowed to engaged in physical relations?

If its about religion and religious values, then why is the government intervening on such an issue where religion and state should remain separate?

8

In my humdle, and very gay opinion, I think it boils down to the language being used.
I think that the term “marriage” is what gets people in a tizzy. Culturally and historically it is a term used to define a union between a MAN AND A WOMAN. There is no doubt about that. There is no other term in the English language that carries so much meaning or is representative of that kind of commitment and blah blah blah. I think it should be a term reserved for the straights. It’s theirs. I, as a gay womanw ho one day wants to get “married” wouldn’t want that term used. It doesn’t apply to my niche in society or my experiences as a gay person. Give me another term but all the goodes behind it; have it considered just as important and sacred and blah blah blah, and I, along with all the others who don’t want gays to get “married” will be on our merry way. I think the majority of the people who say they are opposed to gay marriage aren’t opposed to two people of the same sex loving each other and wanting to be able to be united in such a way, but rather opposed to the term being used, because it is a term meant for a man and a woman. People lose sight of that I think. I mean, if it really comes down to keeping that word for a certain group of people then I say let them have it. you can have the same thing with a different name, which more often that not, can be more appropriate.

9

[quote=“Tyc00n”]This is an interesting debate. Is marriage about law or is it about religion?

If its about law, then why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to be married when if by law they are allowed to engaged in physical relations?

If its about religion and religious values, then why is the government intervening on such an issue where religion and state should remain separate?[/quote]

Nicely put. :bravo:

HG

10

[quote=“bushibanned”]In my humdle, and very gay opinion, I think it boils down to the language being used.
I think that the term “marriage” is what gets people in a tizzy. Culturally and historically it is a term used to define a union between a MAN AND A WOMAN. There is no doubt about that. There is no other term in the English language that carries so much meaning or is representative of that kind of commitment and blah blah blah. I think it should be a term reserved for the straights. It’s theirs. I, as a gay womanw ho one day wants to get “married” wouldn’t want that term used. It doesn’t apply to my niche in society or my experiences as a gay person. Give me another term but all the goodes behind it; have it considered just as important and sacred and blah blah blah, and I, along with all the others who don’t want gays to get “married” will be on our merry way. I think the majority of the people who say they are opposed to gay marriage aren’t opposed to two people of the same sex loving each other and wanting to be able to be united in such a way, but rather opposed to the term being used, because it is a term meant for a man and a woman. People lose sight of that I think. I mean, if it really comes down to keeping that word for a certain group of people then I say let them have it. you can have the same thing with a different name, which more often that not, can be more appropriate.[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more. However, I think the real issue for many same sex couples - my brother and his SO included - is the legal “sanctity” of the term “marriage”. How can a couple enter into prenuptial agreements, joint property ownership contracts, etc, if there is the likelihood of little or no legal recognition of such commitments having been made, if and when it’s needed?

11

[quote=“Infidel”][quote=“bushibanned”]In my humdle, and very gay opinion, I think it boils down to the language being used.
I think that the term “marriage” is what gets people in a tizzy. Culturally and historically it is a term used to define a union between a MAN AND A WOMAN. There is no doubt about that. There is no other term in the English language that carries so much meaning or is representative of that kind of commitment and blah blah blah. I think it should be a term reserved for the straights. It’s theirs. I, as a gay womanw ho one day wants to get “married” wouldn’t want that term used. It doesn’t apply to my niche in society or my experiences as a gay person. Give me another term but all the goodes behind it; have it considered just as important and sacred and blah blah blah, and I, along with all the others who don’t want gays to get “married” will be on our merry way. I think the majority of the people who say they are opposed to gay marriage aren’t opposed to two people of the same sex loving each other and wanting to be able to be united in such a way, but rather opposed to the term being used, because it is a term meant for a man and a woman. People lose sight of that I think. I mean, if it really comes down to keeping that word for a certain group of people then I say let them have it. you can have the same thing with a different name, which more often that not, can be more appropriate.[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more. However, I think the real issue for many same sex couples - my brother and his SO included - is the legal “sanctity” of the term “marriage”. How can a couple enter into prenuptial agreements, joint property ownership contracts, etc, if there is the likelihood of little or no legal recognition of such commitments having been made, if and when it’s needed?[/quote]

exactly my point when I say give us a new name for the whole shabang, but all the stuff that lies behind the meaning of it. Take away the term “marriage” and what you have left is the same thing (but between two people of the same sex), the same values, commitment, legalities etc… I really do beleive if there were a different term, with the same meaning, there would be a lot less controversy.

12

[quote=“bushibanned”]In my humdle, and very gay opinion, I think it boils down to the language being used.
I think that the term “marriage” is what gets people in a tizzy. Culturally and historically it is a term used to define a union between a MAN AND A WOMAN. There is no doubt about that. There is no other term in the English language that carries so much meaning or is representative of that kind of commitment and blah blah blah. I think it should be a term reserved for the straights. It’s theirs. I, as a gay womanw ho one day wants to get “married” wouldn’t want that term used. It doesn’t apply to my niche in society or my experiences as a gay person. Give me another term but all the goodes behind it; have it considered just as important and sacred and blah blah blah, and I, along with all the others who don’t want gays to get “married” will be on our merry way. I think the majority of the people who say they are opposed to gay marriage aren’t opposed to two people of the same sex loving each other and wanting to be able to be united in such a way, but rather opposed to the term being used, because it is a term meant for a man and a woman. People lose sight of that I think. I mean, if it really comes down to keeping that word for a certain group of people then I say let them have it. you can have the same thing with a different name, which more often that not, can be more appropriate.[/quote]

You make a very good point, but I would counter by saying that no other word, or institution, has gone through the radical changes marriage has in the past 30 years. We no longer think of marriage as invioable, or unbreakable, and we certainly do not condone marriage for the sake of securing property lines, cementing family ties, and so on. Marriage has come to be seen as a wholly voluntary arrangement between adults. That they love each other is usually taken as a given but I know of people who married more for companionship than love.

In any case, marriage is not what it once was. Those who want to return it to an earlier state are reactionaries, not conservatives.

But you’re right, that the term still raises the hackels of most people. Do you think though that something like civil unions are a step toward full eqaulity (ie marriage rights) or all an end in themselves?

13

MM you have good points as well. But however much marriage has changed over the past 30 years, it is still a term used for a union between a man and a woman. Therefore those changes, as radical as they may be within the institution of marriage, are still changes to something that represents a union between a man and a woman. Those changes are still not inclusive or representative of gay couples/partnerships. Gay marriage doesn’t really have a history for it to be included in the social evolution of it. Civil unions have their limits (esp. federally like immigration etc.) and unfortunately we’ve had to pick apart “marriage” down to the legal nitty gritties to make people aware of all the rights that lie behind it. Most don’t realize exactly what you get when you get married. So I think people have lost sight of what is it the gay community really wants (and of course i can’t speak for everyone… this is just my opinion). It’s turned into a fight for the technicalities behind it… it’s viewed as a fight to be able to have property etc… blah blah blah.

To me, I find it frustrating because although I’m a lesbian, I’m actually quite traditional. I have the same values and respect for a commitment like “marriage” and want to be able to do that like everyone else one day, with the right person. But the term “marriage” is I dunno… I wouldn’t want it. It doesn’t have any meaning to me. I’m not a woman marrying a man. The term means nothing to me. However, I want what “marriage” means (and not just the legal perks)… if only someone could think of another word that is just as special. I don’t know if I’m making any sense… it’s hard for me to articulate what I mean…

14

fe

15

Honestly, I think the whole debate just proves that some people seriously need to get a hobby or grow up. If it is not how one person choses to practice the religion they chose to practice, why is it so important for them to force the next person to not?
Even if it is religion, why are people so damned pushy that everyone practice the same way? This behaviour is what made me an athiest.

16

I am sympathetic to the idea that the state should treat “marriage” as a genre of interpersonal contracts. So if you’re 18 and your whole family is pressing you to sign the “Standard Muslim Contract”, and you do, then congratulations and hope you have a happy life.

Of course this would only work if we separate out the concept of “marriage” from any connection to citizenship, inheritance, insurance, and so on. Otherwise you’d have a whole range of people trying to get “married” in order to get one of these other goods. (Imagine!)

I see the “gay marriage” issue as not terribly significant (wait a few centuries, and all this will be remembered as just another sign of the apocalypse, like karaoke) but the polygamy issue as having far more staying-power. (So to speak!) At some point, courts are going to HAVE to figure out their policy about recognizing plural marriages. Picture some sweet woman who wants a divorce, but her husband argues that they’re not really married since they got married in some primitive Arab country like Singapore where polygamy was legal, and hubby was already married, but here in the new country the law doesn’t recognize plural marriages. Now multiply by a few ten thousand, and presto! New laws, and a new social order to boot! Praise Allah…

17

It’s just unfair. I hate it. Say for example I met my gf 7 years ago, and she decides to leave Taiwan. I can’t go with her…or it’s a LOT harder. Yet a boy and girl that has known each other for 2 weeks can get married. And whoops…a month later they get pregnant. It sucks enough that I can’t have a child with her…I have to be happy with soooo little.

I want a chocolate:(

18

Battery, I hear you. I think it is bullshit.
How about child custody?
My best friend was left a child. The will made the COUPLE godparents. And yet they STILL had to get a damned good lawyer to keep the son.

19

Former US SENATOR, Rick Santorum:[quote]“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

His initial statement in the unedited interview (see below) did not include the insert “[gay]”. It also included additional remarks criticizing “homosexual acts”:

“Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.”[/quote]

Focus on the Family:

[quote]This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarten in the homosexual lifestyle. Young people who are sexually confused need the facts about homosexuality. They need to know that research shows they aren’t `born gay,’ that there is hope for a way out of the lifestyle, and that continuing in homosexuality presents serious health risks. The NEA’s proposal would censor such honesty." --Family Research Council spokeswoman Genevieve Wood on the National Education Association, Washington Times, July 4th, 2001

. . . . .

“…one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.” --“Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia,” a FRC publication, July 1999, frc.org/misc/bl057.pdf

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.” --“Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia,” FRC publication, July 1999, frc.org/misc/bl057.pdf
[/quote]

Family.org:

I disagree with bushibanned. I think many of the critics/opposers of gay marriage, at least in the US, are not concerned with marriage as a word meaning the union of a man and a woman rather they are aware of the privileges bestowed upon people who marry and they don’t want gay people to enjoy those same privileges. They don’t want gay people to have children, for example. They oppose gay adoption of children. They believe that children need to have a MAN and a WOMAN model in order to grow up and be well adjusted and healthy. They believe that gay sex is a sin. Allowing gays to marry will then give gay sex a legitimacy under law with which they disagree in the extreme.

An aside: Gay marriage in the US is a political wedge issue. There is a large minority of people who oppose gay marriage, homosexuality in general, because of bigotry and misinterpretation of canon such as the Bible. I think the majority of people could care less who sleeps with whom, and who marries whom.

Bodo

20

[quote=“Battery9”]It’s just unfair. I hate it. Say for example I met my gf 7 years ago, and she decides to leave Taiwan. I can’t go with her…or it’s a LOT harder. Yet a boy and girl that has known each other for 2 weeks can get married. And whoops…a month later they get pregnant. It sucks enough that I can’t have a child with her…I have to be happy with soooo little.

I want a chocolate:([/quote]

you’d be able to go to canada without even having to get married. but we’ve been over this. :wink: