Same Sex Marriages - Victory and Defeat

After Granny's post, I said I'd post the Fundie viewpoint. First, a recap of Granny's post:

Thursday, June 14, 2007
Victory for Families - All Families!!
The fundamentalists won't see it that way but who cares:From Garden State Equality today. I copied it almost verbatim - just rearranged a couple of paragraphs. You can find much more on LGBT rights nation and world wide on their excellent web site.BREAKING NEWS: In one of the greatest victories ever for the LGBTI civil rights movement in America, the Massachusetts state legislature has once-and-for-all defeated a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. See the Associated Press article below.The threat to marriage equality in Massachusetts is now over! Garden State Equality salutes MassEquality, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), among other incredible advocates in Massachusetts, whose heroic work defies description. They are among the greatest civil rights heroes of our time.

For Granny's complete post and article, see http://is_america_burning.blogspot.com/2007/06/victory-for-families-all-families.html

Gay folk and supporters celebrate victory in Massachussetts

>>>>

The Fundies' viewpoint:

From the FRC; Tony Perkins (Dobson's protege)

Note his "scare tactics" of predictions.

>>>>

Mass Transit: Have Marriage, Will Travel

Buoyed by their success in blocking the people's vote on marriage, homosexual activists have set their sights on another Massachusetts policy--the 1913 law that bans non-resident same-sex couples from visiting the state to get married. The campaign could "export" counterfeit marriages to the other 49 states that haven't legalized homosexual "marriage." As former governor Mitt Romney said, repealing the law would make the Bay State the "Las Vegas of gay marriage." Unfortunately, what happens in this Las Vegas wouldn't stay in Las Vegas.

If the opposition is successful in their coup, it could trigger a domino effect across the states and backlog every court in America with suits for mandatory recognition of same-sex marriage. Nine turncoats in the Massachusetts legislature went over to the pro-homosexual side in the last 24 hours before last Thursday's vote. Among the inductees for the Marriage Hall of Shame, these members voted in favor of putting the issue on the ballot in January 2007 only to flip-flop last week: Sens. Gale Candaras (D) and Michael Morrissey (D); Reps. Christine Canavan (D), Paul Kujawski (D), Paul Loscocco (R), Robert Nyman (D), Richard Ross (D), James Vallee (D), and Brian Wallace (D).
Additional Resources ';Vegas of gay marriage' Order Your Copy Now Critical Mass DVD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fundies believe in Old Testament Law and literal interpretation of the Bible.


Old Testament Law dictates that:
Homosexuals should be put to death.
Adulterers should be put to death.
Children who curse at their parents (rebellious sons) should be killed.
If a man sleeps with a woman on her period they are to be exiled.
You may not eat pork or lobster but it's OK to eat locusts.
A woman who has given birth must bring a lamb and a pigeon to church (for sacrifice).
[Plus many more laws].

COMMENTS:

Granny said...
It is true that activists have begun working to change the 1913 law. And why not?Although if they went back to their home state, it probably wouldn't be valid because of the obscene federal Defense of Marriage Act.One baby step at a time.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:52:00 AM
The Future Was Yesterday said...
I can understand the concerns the gay community has on this issue. However, I wonder if it's not being overblown by "that piece of paper." If you're in love, and you live together, other than benefits....that paper means nothing.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:31:00 PM
Granny said...
Future is Yesterday:As I said in my email to you:I said that to one of my gay online friends. Ii asked him if they'd be okay with a law like New Jersey's which supposedly gives all the same benefits of marriage but without the word "marriage" or even CA with it's fairly liberal Domestic Partners law..It isn't working in New Jersey. Employers are ignoring the law. My CA friends tell me that there are still many things missing from Domestic Partners. It is about the benefits. Health Insurance, family leave, the right to visit in a hospital, the right to make medical decisions, adoption, and a host of other things marrieds take for granted.On the other hand, seniors are discovering that they often do better financially living together. Ray and I would have been so far as medical care is concerned. If we were living together, he'd be qualified for SSI as well as SSA because of his disability. He wouldn't be stuck with that huge Medicare co-pay. Now, because we both have Social Security, he's over incomed. Some people actually divorce to survive.And of course separate but equal usually isn't.What I'd like to see is the gov't out of the marriage business completely and make it a civil contract like any other for all people. Leave the "marriage" optional and up to the churches. The civil contract would be binding, the "marriage" would be window dressing. And I agree with you. If it weren't for the benefits (and becoming next of kin which can be extremely important), the piece of paper doesn't make any difference so far as a commitment is concerned.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:46:00 AM
Granny said...
After I wrote the comment above, I received my daily email from Garden State Equality. Here's part of what it said:"As of last Friday, 1092 couples have gotten civil-unioned in New Jersey, according to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Service. As of today, 151 civil-unioned couples have complained to Garden State Equality that employers refuse to provide civil-union benefits. In fact, 13 percent is, if anything, way too low an estimate of the New Jersey civil union law's failure rate. The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights reports that in the four months of the law, 90 couples a month have inquired about trouble with their civil unions working in the real world, for 360 such couples in all."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:36:00 AM
Worried said...
Granny is right about co-habiting instead of marriage for seniors is often the best option and many seniors do divorce (yet continue to co-habit) in order to survive.Before my aged aunt's husband finally perished from a long bout with cancer, they considered the divorce option. Uncle John would have been eligible for far more benefits as a single man than as a husband. They did not divorce, as my aunt felt like she was in spirit abandoning him in his terrible need.
However, Granny is also correct about gays being denied benefits without the "piece of paper" in spite of the law. I know of a gay couple who had been together for over 30 years, had accumulated property and many household material possessions. Although the real property was owned jointly (legally) there was no ownership papers on all the material goods, some of great value. When one partner became terminally ill, his anti-gay family stepped in, took charge of all his medical and legal affairs, denied the other partner visiting privileges to his dying loved one and later even to the funeral, and denied him any access to the personal properties within the home. He was able to fight for his share of the real property but it was ugly and painful during a time of great grief and loss. That is very wrong, whether one approves or disapproves of homosexual love. It was not only un-Christian, it was cruel and inhumane.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:04:00 AM