<p>Hoo_29, you and I are exact opposites in a similar situation. I live in Canada and sooooo fed up with the liberalism. They want to legalize gay marriage, decriminalize marijuana, raise taxes, adopt a national daycare program, etc. I too want to get out of Canada (I'll be studying in America next year). How about we switch passports?!</p>
<p>I love the U.S. more than anything. I will never become an expatriot. I am just saddened by its state right now. I think all this has helped me realize my calling in International Affairs and politics.</p>
<p>I believe people are misconstruing the word "marriage." Marriage is specifically defined as a union between a man and a woman. The majority of the ballot initiatives that passed on November 2 simply reaffirmed that definition. It's the simple fact that the word "MARRIAGE" does not specifically apply to gays and lesbians. I believe it should be fine to have civil unions, but marriage is specifically between a man and a woman, though it is still a union.</p>
<p>Where have you seen it specifically defined as man and woman? That's what people are having trouble with right now. And the dictionary does not count, as it is only a measure of how people interpreted the word when that particular dictionary was printed, as well as based upon the author/editor/ whatever the heck you would call a person who works on dictionaries believes, along with his/her peers.</p>
<p>Imagine, if people that you don't even know, are trying to stop you from living your personal life and call it "wrong". That's how it is for me right now, people saying it's wrong for gays/lesbians, in my case, bisexuals to marry whomever they love. </p>
<p>I just can't believe some people think of gay-marriage as "right" or "wrong" issues. God damn it, people. It's people's personal lives you're talking about. </p>
<p>I mean, who really cares if I "marry" a woman or a man. Why does it sound so wrong to people anyways. I'm just furious.</p>
<p>uc-benz: Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the rest of this thread because the "definition of marriage" argument has been debunked many times. Marriage is not "specifically defined as a union between a man and a woman" Marriage is defined many different ways by many different cultures and even within a single culture the definition constantly changes. Lest we forget that there was a time in this country when polygamy WAS legal. There is no universal, set definition of marriage. Marriage is an idea, not merely a word to be defined in a dictionary. Different people have different ideas about what it means just like everybody's version of God is different. But, we don't put into the constitution that God is defined one specific way because a persons relationship with GOd is personal. JUst as their chose in committment and marriage is personal.</p>
<p>in response to chalk who said: "being gay is a choice. don't believe them, they're lying."</p>
<p>why do you think that some gays who are not happy with being gay just commit suicide and confess through a note that the reason they killed themselves was because they can't accept themselves for being gay?</p>
<p>The gay marriage issue was seized upon by the clever, unscrupulous Republican strategists as an issue that would excite their base and get out the vote. I believe the gay community is reevaluating its tactics and will use a more incremental approach.</p>
<p>honestly..u guys act like kerry was for gay marriages..he wasnt either..ok but he gave them their rights..he gave people in relationships rights..like the whole hospital issue..etc..thats important..governments only created to provide us our rights..not take them away..not to decide between the right and wrong type of relationship..neways yes whoever says being gay is a choice obviously just doesnt wanna face the facts..i agree with angryschnauzer..why do ppl try to hide the fact that their gay for soooo long..if it was a choice..godd chalk ..u act like its a fad being gay..homosexuality has been around FOREVER...</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that the government cannot marry anyone. Marriage is a religious construct. If a judge or a politician performed your wedding ceremony you are in a Civil Union. When you get married by a state licensed clergyman you get both. You are married in the religious sense and you are also in a government recognized Civil Union. Go ahead and use the word marry if you want, its not copyrighted. I have no qualms (or even an interest) if two people of the same sex want to marry. I think this whole thing is a silly battle over semantics.</p>
<p>Marriages between a man and woman were specifically considered ILLEGAL in Restoration England if they were not sanctioned by Church of England clergy. Quakers (I am one) were considered to be "living in sin", were arrested and jailed for "fornication", and rights of inheritance were denied because their marriages - of man and woman -- were not considered valid. As a result, to this day in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with legal traditions stemming from its Quaker founders, the state recognizes marriages simply on the basis of people "acting as if" they are married. No amount of time required. No declaration. No state certificate. If folks believe you are married, and you don't disabuse them of the idea, you are married.</p>
<p>Our Friends Meeting has been taking gay and lesbian couples under our care in marriage for more than two decades. The world hasn't come to an end. God has not struck us down. The foundations of society are not shaking. Loving people are living in committed relationships, adopting and taking care of their children, holding down jobs, paying their taxes. (But heaven forbid they get deathly ill and end up in the hospital.)</p>
<p>Toblin: the problem is is that Civil Unions AREN'T ALLOWED in GA! People actually voted against them.</p>
<p>It is precisely the connection between "marriage" and "religion" in our cultural Judeo-Christian heritage that makes "gay marriage" such a tough sell and a strategic blunder politically.</p>
<p>One of the more interesting results of the Exit Polls this week is this one, asking what policy towards same-sex couples do you favor:</p>
<p>Legally Marry: 25%
Civil Unions: 35%
No Legal Recognition: 37%</p>
<p>Now, what is interesting is that a strong majority of Americans are NOT in favor of "Gay Marriage" (72%). However, a strong majority of Americans DO SUPPORT legal recognition of committed gay couples. (60%)</p>
<p>I guess I'm a "glass is half full" kind of guy, but it seems to me that, on the glacial timeline of social change, that is rather astonishing progress - given that gays have really only been "out of the closet" politically for a few decades. It hasn't been that many years ago that a gay person could even be portrayed on a TV sitcom.</p>
<p>To have a rather broad concensus for civil unions among the American voting public is REAL progress -- and, honestly, a real example of American's willingness to accept things that are foreign to them.</p>
<p>It supports my contention that the United States is not a socially conservative population. In general, we are quite tolerant in believing that people should be free to do as they please as long as they aren't hurting anyone. </p>
<p>I think that, where Americans tend to recoil, is when new definitions of words or cultural meanings are shoved down their throats by people who take it upon themselves to peddle "the truth". </p>
<p>Let me give you a silly example and a serious example. I despise the term "freshperson" to describe first year college students. As far as I'm concerned, "freshman class" is a perfectly good term that has been in use for a very long time and I don't need a bunch of gobbledy-gook newspeak advocates telling me that I must surely hate women for using it.</p>
<p>A more serious example: I am not a religious person (OK, I was Unitarian....) In high school, I sat quietly during the prayers, figuring that if folk wanted to pray, it was no skin off my teeth. So you can't label me as some right-wing bible thumping evangelical. But, the recent moves to force people to remove the word "God" from flags, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. just infuriates me. My response is "who do they think they are?". It's a part of our country's tradition and culture. If I am to be a tolerant person, then I have to respect the fact that it is important to people's beliefs. How do the words "under God" hurt me? Good grief, it doesn't even bother me if they want to erect a nativity scene in front of the Town Hall building. Who cares?</p>
<p>Anyway, back to gay unions. While I personally view "marriage" as a secular, civil act, I respect the fact that, for many people, it has deep seated religious underpinnings and that the concept of "gay marriage" is jarring at this point in time. I'm happy that the country is prepared to go forward with civil unions.</p>
<p>BTW, my response to the legistlative action taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court would have been to initiate a ballot issue eliminating marriage period ard in favor of civil unions! That would have solved the problem quite nicely by separating the "state" issue from the "religious" issue.</p>
<p>Actually, I care if they erect a nativity scene in front of the Town Hall building. As a citizen, that building is as much mine as anybody's. Once there is a Christian symbol outside it, I am excluded. As to your question "who do you think you are?" vis a vis people who want to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm one of them too. I'm a person who first learned it when those words weren't part of it and see no valid reason for them having been added or for their continued presence. These words have been part of our tradition and culture for only fifty years, a response to the McCarthy years' obsession with fighting the Godless Communists. I think God and Government should be separate. I don't want one religion's or one denomination's version of the Ten Commandments in courthouses. I don't even want "In God We Trust" on the nickel--some of us do and some of us don't. Nobody should have to feel as if their pledge of allegiance or their currency or their civic buildings do not represent them. I'm a religious person but live my religion in my own actions and spirit, in my own home, and in my own religious communities. I don't need a Chanukah menorah on the White House Lawn or the Mall to remind me that I'm Jewish and to remind everyone else that Judaism is the religion some of our citizens practice.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Once there is a Christian symbol outside it, I am excluded. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't understand how your are excluded. I actually should feel more excluded. But, I figure, what the heck? A display of a nativity scene or a Star of David or a statue of Buddha doesn't hurt me, doesn't prevent me from going into Town Hall to pay my water bill, or keep me from practising the religion of my choice. Just seems to me that there are more important things to worry about.</p>
<p>But, anyway, what I think is not the issue. I'm just trying to explain WHY some political actions are unsettling to the average American. As long as those groups don't mind getting their butts kicked on election day over and over and over, then they should feel free continuing efforts that alienate voters. If, on the other hand, they decide to take a more pragmatic approach (like trying to win elections), then they might want to take a look at issues that don't "sell" to middle America.</p>
<p>Personally, I like my politicians to be pragmatic because I like it when "my guy" wins. Plus, I think it's generally a good thing when elected officials are at least a little bit "in touch" with the population they serve.</p>
<p>Go look up the word "marriage" and tell me what you find out.</p>
<p>With that said, marriage is a specific word to a specific situation, but a marriage and a civil union are essentially the same thing, just different names. That's like the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Mercury Mountaineer: they're essentially the same vehicle but they have nuances that seperate them. Civil Unions should receive all the same benefits as marriage, just have a different name. THATS ALL I AM ARGUING ABOUT.</p>
<p>I am perfectly OK with that UC_Benz. That would be a positive step in the right direction. If only voters didn't vote to ban them this week.</p>
<p>This article was from before the election, but it talks about the amendment.</p>
<p>"I am just so fed up with trying to argue with people on this issue, because they are so self-centered, arrogant, redneck, ignorant, and discriminatory jerks. ...All the Christian Churches are composed of "holier than thou" people, and I am just there to earn spiritual guidance, seek tranquility in God, and search for new ways to improve myself and society. But now I am so turned off to Christianity, because it is now associated with conservatism."</p>
<p>Wow. I am really sorry you feel that way....</p>
<p>UC-BENZ: I actually have looked up the word marriage in more than one dictionary. Depending on the dictionary and the year the dictionary was last edited, the meanings slightly change. In a Webster's collegiate dictionary of 2002, there is more than one definition. One of the definitions is: the rite by which the married status is affected. That doesn't designate sex. Another definition is: the institution whereby woman and men are are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. That specific definition does not designate one man and one woman and implies reproduction. So, does that mean polygamy is part of the definition and married couples that choose not to have children and not truly married? My point is, your word definition argument is ridiculous, Get off it!</p>