Re: Dear Red States

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone.

I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population.

They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille

It *is* sad, and Arizonans also voted in favour (56% yes, 44% no) of a ballot measure banning gay marriage, and Arkansans voted in favour (57% yes, 43% no) of a ban on gay couples adopting children (both from or

really don't understand why some people feel so threatened by gay people; the only difference between gays and heterosexuals is to whom they're sexually attracted.

Good point. I did laugh this a.m. some wit on CBC radio said "Palin ? She made Dan Quayle look like a leading light of MENSA"

Good for them!

Pat

I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people, who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't.

Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies.

Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big, financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost all our Social Security.

Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL

Gill

Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt.

I agree, there needs to be some legality involved. I know several couples, as do you I suspect, who are in that unfortunate dilemma.

Other than financial, religion also comes into play. I know/knew a couple who had been a couple for 30-40 years. His legal wife was catholic, he and Polly , who knows. Anyway, they kept separate names, but they were together a very long time. He died a couple of years back, and Polly was not even mentioned in the obituary. I think she had no say. His "wife" in Maine was listed as the loving widow, and they hadn't seen each other for a zillion years.

it is something when we oldies live in sin. isn't it??

I have to laugh when I remember introducing my Mom to Jim( years before we married) and she approved, because I was beyond child-bearing years LOL. Mum wasn't as stuffy as I thought!

Gil

That explains a lot about you, actually.

I treasure the women in my life.

Elizabeth

I'd be interested to see those stats, because it's highly unlikely that anyone voted on a proposition without voting for president. It's much more likely that people voted for president without voting on the propositions.

Elizabeth

"Jangchub" wrote .

The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't.

Dawne

"Pat in Illinois" wrote .

(wiping up coffee--thanks Pat!!) Too funny. Next time we are out for a beer I will start a fight among the group as to which one of us would be played by Bea Arthur!!! (I am afraid I am Betty White, but won't admit it to the rest of them). No pantsuits thought.

Dawne

I want to grow up to be Blanche!

Pat > "Pat in Illinois" wrote .

Damn! You beat me to it!! Actually, back in college my three roommates and I would always joke about which Golden Girl we were. Yeah...I really was the Blanche of the bunch! The stories I could tell......but won't. ;-p

Jinx

It would be a much more sensible solution to move toward separating civil and religious marriage. Goodness knows a number of other countries have managed to make it work. There are US politicians who have proposed this as a solution, but they typically get shot down under the theory that the state is somehow undermining marriage if there's a clear demarcation between civil and religious marriage.

Best wishes, Ericka

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How is a civil ceremony by a judge or a Justice of the Peace not separate from a religious one????

Lucille

Other way around. DH and I were married by a Catholic priest whose religious authority also gave him the authority to marry us in the eyes of the state. In European countries if you want a religious ceremony that's fine, buy you still have to have a civil one.

Elizabeth

Same here, but it was a Rabbi.

What I was trying to say is you can get married in a civil ceremony and you don't need to have a religious ceremony. I have friends who simply went to the court house and got married before a judge.

You can even get married in Nevada without any kind of waiting period, no blood tests, etc..

L