ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

In other words, fully surrender my thoughts on this matter. Fully surrender my defintion as defined by my religion.
Sorry, I don't do PC or any other thought control application so popular with those lacking the stones to stand up for their right to free speech.
Your Taco Bell- Colonel Sanders analogy was beyond weak...
You might call my thoughts and definitions of marriage wrong, but I would differ...and I would not be so pretentiously arrogant to suggest you are wrong.

 musik_knut wrote: 
It is because my civil liberties—and yours—exist that you are free to hold and express your religious beliefs.  And I say have at it: though I certainly don't share 'em, I'm inclined to mind my own business. 

Religion should do the same.

 musik_knut wrote: 
*popping my head in here, not scrolling, so sorry if this point has already been made, like, a million times*

A true civil union, with all legal rights, should be available to anyone who wants one.

I think the issue is that many who espouse more fundamentalist views of religion (and I'm NOT including you in this group, simply because you aer in favor of allowing same sex legal unions), have taken the option of a civil union off the table.  You're either married "In the eyes of the church" or you're not, and by only allowing the traditional "religion-based" definition of marriage to be considered, they've denied millions of good, committed, moral, loving people the right to recognize their unions. 

I have a question for you:  If two people are legally joined by a civil union (whether hetero or homosexual), but that marriage is never blessed in a church, can they refer to themselves as a married couple, in your opinion?  If not, what term should they use socially?  I'm genuinely curious about your answer.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I didn't think priests were allowed to marry one woman, let alone 2

 musik_knut wrote: 
So if my priest marries your cousin and her partner you're okay with that?

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 

Please don't deny my religion, ever...keep your civil liberties out of my religion.

Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony and the participants defined by such.
What part of Civil Union escaped you? Escapes others? With all rights?

Thanks, Bill & Rebecca, for posting this video. I had no idea that this was happening, but, unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me. Living in SC, I am definitely in the minority here when it comes to this issue. While I voted against it, the so-called "Marriage Amendment" passed in SC in 2006 with over 78% of the vote. It's unfortunate that, in this day & age, groups are still discriminated against, including discrimination by groups that used to be on the other end of the fence (AHEM...I'm talking to you, blacks and women that voted for yes for Prop 8).

Unfortunately, this, to me, boils down to the ever-increasing role that religion plays in today's social issues. I haven't seen any statistics, but I'd bet that at least 75% of the people who voted for Prop 8 did so because a same-sex marriage (and relationship, for that matter) is against their religious beliefs. Contrary to what should be the goal of any religion (to spiritually lift someone up in times of trouble and bring everyone together), modern-day religion is only interested in oppressing those with opinions & beliefs with which they don't agree. Increasingly, the view from "the church" has been one of "us vs. them...you're either with God, or against him". Now, I know that statement is a generalization; however, in this case, I think it's warranted. Religion & politics have become so intertwined now that many people seem to be unable to separate their personal beliefs from what everyone else should believe. For the life of me, I've never understood what issues someone would have with a gay or lesbian couple getting married; if it doesn't affect them, why should they have a problem with it? Gays & lesbians aren't asking YOU to marry them...they're just saying they want to marry each other! Are people so homophobic that the very thought of two people of the same sex being together is an abomination in their eyes? I'm straight & married, and I have no problem with same-sex couples marrying, because it's none of my business; it's not my right to tell them whether they should or shouldn't be able to get married. They should be afforded the same rights that heterosexual couples have, and shouldn't be forced to have to justify their relationships.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

love this. 

BillG wrote:
Thanks Bill, it's great to hear you speak out on this. Still sad and tragic to this day there is so much hate and antipathy against people and their choices.

The shells we inhabit are irrelevant.  Marriage should be between true minds and let not Ken Starr nor any other neanderthal admit impediments.*

*25 cents to Billy the Bard

"Marriage," like everything else, evolves.  Remember when "Till death do us part" meant exactly that, without exception, even when said death was clearly gonna be inflicted by one partner upon the other?  How 'bout marriage not for love but because it was your parents' (economically-motivated) choice? 

Things change.  Those who fight that fact (and yeah, I can sometimes be on of 'em) only embarrass themselves.  Eventually.  They can try not to cause a lot of trouble for other people along the way, though. . . .

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 mem_313 wrote: 
We recently had a measure before the state legislature to put something on the ballot that would allow us to vote on whether or not to honor gay marriages legally performed in other states. There was a big push from out of state (Colorado, primarily), but the legislature just said no, not gonna put it on the ballot, we will continue to be The Equality State* despite what some one group over there might want.

*Our official Motto but said here with a smirk. We don't "allow" gay marriages yet but at least we didn't take a step backwards.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
(And "out of state" lobbying to the conservatives. just another reason for the crazy beatniks (that I love) to rally around a cause. I was still shocked)

marriage is a union decided upon by the parties involved. sex is a private matter between those two people. rights are rights... lets forget the skin and look at the stuffing.

some of the worst relationships i have ever witnessed are between men and women.. one story I heard recently; a woman whose husband of 27 years beat her, sold all their furniture. Even after arrested, a restraining order in place, he was released on bail. He came back to the house, broke in and took all her clothes.

come on. love is love. we all should be allowed to choose what we desire.

i sound like a dork.. to bad..

 geoff_morphini wrote: 
That's because the Mormon church poured tens of thousands of dollars into the TV campaign. The truth will eventually come out, as will the Mormon's homophobia.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
Agreed, the Pro-Prop 8 commercials were brutal.  Very hate-based, very sad.

Why my grandparents are the coolest ever...

I participated in the local Prop 8 rally and took some pics.  My pics were published, with a byline in the local indie paper.  I sent a copy to my grandparents.  The page from the paper is hanging on their fridge.

 musik_knut wrote: 

You thought that marriage is a man and a woman, only is likely a religous based notion.  Please keep your religion out of my civil liberties.

If you love your cousin, why wouldn't you want her to be an equal citizen as you?

 Beaker wrote: 
I believe it's called fear mongering.

California has other "nonconformists" to deal with now.

Great stand Bill and Rebecca.

*edit* Thanks for that post SFW.