Regarding legal recognition of same sex partnerships:

dan's picture
I support full legal recognition, and that must include using the word "marriage".
42% (31 votes)
I'd prefer to use the word "marriage", but can accept alternate terms like "civil union" when legally equivalent.
39% (29 votes)
I support legally equivalent "civil unions" (or similar terms), but do not want the word "marriage" used.
14% (10 votes)
I support some legal rights for partners (like health care access or inheritance), but nothing legally equivalent to marriage.
4% (3 votes)
I oppose any form of legal recognition of same sex partnerships.
1% (1 vote)
Total votes: 74
jmminarik's picture

I vote the first sentence of

I vote the first sentence of option 1 with option 2 tacked on.

dan's picture

jmminarik wrote:I vote the

jmminarik wrote:

I vote the first sentence of option 1 with option 2 tacked on.

Option 2 is understood, by implication, to mean exactly that.

lauraska's picture

I picked option 2 with a

I picked option 2 with a caveat similar to Joe's. In my own personal opinion, the differentiation between marriage and civil union is an insult to gay couples because it continues to imply that their love is somehow different than the love shared between a man and a woman. HOWEVER, with the realization that we can't change the world overnight, I'd rather there be civil unions than nothing at all. Baby steps, I suppose.

As I've said before, I just don't get what people are so afraid of. Straight folks have done a bang up job of ruining the institution of marriage by creating the 50%+ divorce rate, so I don't see how allowing gay couples to have some sort of recognized union is going to do anything worse. And if it's a religious thing, that argument goes out the window when we take the word marriage out of the picture. Civil unions are none of the church's business.

jmminarik's picture

lauraska wrote:I picked

lauraska wrote:

I picked option 2 with a caveat similar to Joe's.

I think it's the 'unacceptable' wording that annoys me. It's not needed and adds a militant tone to the statement.

stein's picture

I have no patience for

I have no patience for separate but equal, and don't see the need to coddle grown ass adults because they are 'uncomfortable' with using the word marriage to describe relationships/legalentities that are functionally equivalent to relationships/legalentities that they do think of as marriages.

this isn't a poll about how to get to a certain state, but rather what you think that end state should be.

karp's picture

in the eyes of the

in the eyes of the government, I think everything should be a civil union. marriage is a religous event in my eyes, and their decision on who they want to marry. I think the problem he is church and state are mixed up when they should not be.

All couples should have a right by the government to have a civil union.

Matt Brannon's picture

I'm surprised that Prop 8

I'm surprised that Prop 8 passed in California, of all places. Arkansas or something, that makes sense, but liberal California?

lauraska's picture

It's not as liberal as you

It's not as liberal as you think. There are ALOT of very secluded, rural areas there.

stein's picture

karp wrote: marriage is a

karp wrote:

marriage is a religous event in my eyes, and their decision on who they want to marry.

for most of the history of the christian religion, churches didn't care about sanctioning marriages of commoners. powerful clergy cared about influencing the marriages of nobles to maintain/expand their own power but definitely not because it was an inherently religious institution.

Lisa33's picture

I will argue for the word

I will argue for the word marriage for gay unions. When our society legitimizes this very real familial love as marriage, people will be more accepting of their gay children, and those kids will be more accepting of themselves.

For example, I think there would be a lot less gay teenagers who get kicked out of their homes and wind up on the street, if the word "marriage" was used for legal unions of gay couples.

Most of my gay friends use the term "marriage" anyway when they have made that sort of commitment, legal or not.

Matt Brannon's picture

lauraska wrote:It's not as

lauraska wrote:

It's not as liberal as you think. There are ALOT of very secluded, rural areas there.

I know from driving through CA that there's a lot of backwards areas, but I'd have guessed that the majority of people living in places like L.A., San Fransisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, etc. would be enough to vote down a Prop 8 type proposal.

dan's picture

jmminarik wrote:I think it's

jmminarik wrote:

I think it's the 'unacceptable' wording that annoys me. It's not needed and adds a militant tone to the statement.

How would you phrase it better (in the limited number of characters available) to express the viewpoint that the only acceptable option is to use the word "marriage"?

cristen's picture

i grew up outside of

i grew up outside of sacramento. Mostly cali is pretty liberal but outside of the major cities its pretty conservative.

dan's picture

stein wrote:for most of the

stein wrote:

for most of the history of the christian religion, churches didn't care about sanctioning marriages of commoners. powerful clergy cared about influencing the marriages of nobles to maintain/expand their own power but definitely not because it was an inherently religious institution.

Marriage was generally considered a secular institution.

Fairly early on it became common that after getting married, the couple would come to the church for a blessing. Once buildings for churches became common in Europe, those ceremonies of blessing for a marriage were held on the steps of the church. Eventually they started holding them in the sanctuary.

The tradition of actually holding the marriage ritual inside the sanctuary came much later.

stein's picture

I'd have to go back and look

I'd have to go back and look it up, but if i am not mistaken the idea of having a specific wedding ritual at all is a pretty recent (probably somewhere near 1500AD as a reference) development. the families might have a feast or whatever to celebrate afterwards, but the marriage 'happened' as soon as the negotiations were finalized by the family and the couple said they were married, where ever that happened.

jmminarik's picture

dan wrote:jmminarik wrote:I

dan wrote:
jmminarik wrote:

I think it's the 'unacceptable' wording that annoys me. It's not needed and adds a militant tone to the statement.

How would you phrase it better (in the limited number of characters available) to express the viewpoint that the only acceptable option is to use the word "marriage"?

Simply leave it at: I support full legal recognition using the word "marriage".

The second sentence in its militancy makes me think of gay-marriage-rights-nazi's.

2014 susquehanna's picture

UGGH! I'll be so happy when

UGGH! I'll be so happy when this is no longer an issue. BIGOTS SUCK!

Ftown66's picture

I voted for whole lot of

I voted for whole lot of option 1 with 7% of option two thrown in and 4% of option 3 and a smidgen of option 4 and just a dab of 5. The problem with putting these things up for votes is that most people are asses and can't come toa simple decision. I opt for the term marriage with every option that comes to a straight married couple. No Exception! Your either for it or against it. You can't say I'm for them being married or a civil marriage but they can't have medical benifits. They deserve the same benifits a married straight couple does.

george's picture

2014 susquehanna wrote:UGGH!

2014 susquehanna wrote:

UGGH! I'll be so happy when this is no longer an issue. BIGOTS SUCK!

Tell me about it.

Frankly, it's never been that big a deal to me since I attach little or no meaning to the "Institution of Marriage" anyway---aside from the financial/taxation benefits. Anything with a 50% failure rate isn't exactly awe-inspiring, y'know?

What I always find humorous is the people who talk about gay issues being "shoved in their faces." When, exactly, does this occur? They never seem to be able to provide specific examples of how any of this inconveniences them in any way and always wind up talking about nonsensical things like 'parades' that I must assume they are forced to attend. Bizarre.

Ftown66's picture

These conversations and

These conversations and polls are the way some people try to prove to everyone else we are not homophobic. Is it working guys?

dan's picture

I still don't see the word

I still don't see the word "unacceptable" as portraying any kind of miltancy - but as simply descriptive. And, I think if you leave the second sentence off, it doesn't clarify option 1 from option 2 - it makes option 1 a subset of option 2.

However, I think I can tweak it a little.

2014 susquehanna's picture

Ever notice that the gay

Ever notice that the gay folks on here never really engage people for saying homophobic things.

I roll my eyes when people get on their soap boxes in defense of homosexuals because they make it seem as if we care about what some ignorant bigot thinks. besides, we can take pretty good care of ourselves.

This marriage thing is odd for me. I never thought about it until it became a hot botton issue. I guess you could say I don't think it's necessary. Dave and I have been together for almost 8 years, we never fight, we enjoy each others company and we take care of one another and he's really hot(LOL). I don't need any silly ceremony to prove anything. I'd probably feel different if I were a lesbain...they seem to like that kinda thing.

stein's picture

I don't know, man. I don't

I don't know, man. I don't see why heterosexuals should tolerate homophobia regardless of whether or not there are homosexuals that could speak up. Are not heterosexuals also better off in a world that is intolerant of homophobia?

lauraska's picture

stein wrote:I don't know,

stein wrote:

I don't know, man. I don't see why heterosexuals should tolerate homophobia regardless of whether or not there are homosexuals that could speak up. Are not heterosexuals also better off in a world that is intolerant of homophobia?

I agree, and not just because 2014's comment was a swipe at me. (And I'm not saying this to be passive aggressive, or because I want people to think I'm being attacked, or because I feel "guilty." I'm saying it because it's true.) So many of us have friends and relatives who are gay...why shouldn't the instinct be to stick up for the people we love? I guess I don't feel like I should be apathetic about something simply because it doesn't directly affect me. If that were the case, I wouldn't be involved with half of the causes I fight for.

2014 susquehanna's picture

Get over yourself Laura. I

Get over yourself Laura. I wasn't taking a swipe at you. Not everything I post is about you.

lauraska's picture

I should have said that it

I should have said that it was a swipe at people like me. But whatever. It's absurd for you to say that no one can care about gay rights except for gay people. I think YOU need to get over yourself if that's what you believe. Does that mean that the only people who can care about the HIV epidemic in Africa are people with AIDS? That only black people can be happy about electing our first black president? Being passionate about something doesn't make your argument any less valid. But being a jerk about it does.

2014 susquehanna's picture

There you go again...putting

There you go again...putting words in my mouth. Who said anything about AIDS or blacks or anything else for that matter.

Maybe I should remind you that you once referred to me as a "Queen". In my eyes, you don't have the moral high ground on this issue . Keep going off like a lunitic if you like. I don't really care.

lauraska's picture

a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy 

a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy   /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics. a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.

5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

I see, so it's okay for you to go off about hating fat people because "you didn't really mean it," but I used the word Queen to make a point about something derogatory that YOU said, and I have no moral ground to stand on. Whatever.

brooke's picture

If eloping in Vegas makes a

If eloping in Vegas makes a legal marriage (which my mom and step-father did, by the way), so should two committed gay people. I believe gay people should get the same benefits in life and death in the institution of marriage that straight people get. But more than that, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be called marriage.

One of my dear friends who is 65% gay often asks why I care when I don't support businesses or won't date men when they are homophobic--he says if he was straight, he wouldn't care. I may not be gay but I don't support discrimination and I forget the old Jewish saying about if you don't fight against others' oppression, there will be no one left to fight against your own when they come for you.

dan's picture

How about everybody get over

How about everybody get over themselves about everything?