• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'I do' in DC: Same-sex couples wed in Washington

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — One bride wore a knee-length lace dress and pearls. The other bride wore a yellow shirt and white suit. And when a pastor pronounced them "partners in life this day and for always" Tuesday, they hugged and smiled in front of wedding guests and nearly a dozen TV cameras and reporters.


On the first day same-sex couples could marry in Washington, brides Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend were the first of three couples taking the plunge in morning ceremonies at the offices of the Human Rights Campaign, which does advocacy work on gay, lesbian and transgender issues. Other ceremonies were planned throughout the day.

You know, I am really torn on this. Why? Because when was who got married any of the government's damn business anyways? When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses. If my wife and I had to get married again, we would just do it, and give the government a big, fat, middle finger, by not registering and getting their damn license. We would be married, whether or not the government approved of it. It's not their domain, and they have absolutely no say in it.

However, having said that, I will now say congratulations to brides and grooms, brides and brides, and grooms and grooms, wherever they may find themselves at the altar, whether that altar is religious or secular.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.

They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.
 
There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.

It's about fairness. Would you say that for a certain type of heterosexual couple? How about old couples? Interracial couples? Old man/young woman or vice versa couple? Sterile couple? Non-religious couple? They can get a civil union, so what's the problem? So what if they aren't recognized by the federal government with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities of those that go to a legally married couple? :roll: Same old argument.

They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.

If you don't like what's going on in those parades, don't watch them.
 
It's about fairness. Would you say that for a certain type of heterosexual couple? How about old couples? Interracial couples? Old man/young woman or vice versa couple? Sterile couple? Non-religious couple? They can get a civil union, so what's the problem? So what if they aren't recognized by the federal government with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities of those that go to a legally married couple? :roll: Same old argument.



If you don't like what's going on in those parades, don't watch them.
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?
 
They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.

No more different then a heterosexual couple getting married in public places or making out. Heterosexuals can "get in your face" just as much as homosexuals do.
 
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?

Only if you want to change the legal definition of marriage, and change all the laws involving marriage.
 
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?

Someone should tell the military then. My husband and I got married on his aunt's horse farm, by a Navy spouse who drove out from Norfolk to perform the ceremony for us. In fact, a common thing now is for some Navy personnel to get legally ordained and then they perform weddings for their buddies.
 
Only if you want to change the legal definition of marriage, and change all the laws involving marriage.
marriage is the word everybody is hung up on........and i don't think a "marriage" at a jp is any more than a civil union.
it's certainly not a religious union.
 
marriage is the word everybody is hung up on........and i don't think a "marriage" at a jp is any more than a civil union.
it's certainly not a religious union.

Marriage has in this country certain legal rights and responsibilities. It's a legal term. You can't discount that.
 
marriage is the word everybody is hung up on........and i don't think a "marriage" at a jp is any more than a civil union.
it's certainly not a religious union.

Depends on the person's religion. Some religious union ceremonies are extremely private. Others are done outside a church normally. No religion owns the word "marriage".
 
When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses.

Marriage licenses in the U.S. go back to colonial America(1600s). I think written licenses go back about 200 years but 'licenses' as the forefathers and earlier people would have interpreted them were usually public declarations of marriage. But even then Catholics couldn't marry Protestants and Protestants couldn't marry Muslims etc etc. If anything prohibitions on marriage are an invention of the 1800s. Licenses go back a few centuries in different forms. But I could be wrong. I remember reading something once about something called 'Banns of Marriage'.
 
it's all terminology. how is a jp ceremony any more than a civil union? it's not religious.
 
Marriage has in this country certain legal rights and responsibilities. It's a legal term. You can't discount that.
i'm not. i'm saying define everything that is civil as civil, and grant rights to those unions the way rights are granted to marriages now.

let marriage be in the religious realm.
 
i'm not. i'm saying define everything that is civil as civil, and grant rights to those unions the way rights are granted to marriages now.

let marriage be in the religious realm.

Which will not happen any time soon in this country. Dealing with the country as it is now, marriage is a particular thing, and gays want a part of that thing, which seems reasonable to me.
 
i'm not. i'm saying define everything that is civil as civil, and grant rights to those unions the way rights are granted to marriages now.

let marriage be in the religious realm.

Then every marriage recognized by the government should actually be called a civil union then. You assume that religion owns the term marriage. That's not true. And what if the person is simply an online ordained minister that will perform any ceremony you want? It's not like they're required to do a specific ceremony every time. My officiant asked us what kind of ceremony we wanted at lunch. She had a book. She told me in an earlier conversation that she did a ceremony in a bathing suit in a hot tub earlier that year. She was willing to adjust to whatever kind of ceremony we wanted, religious or not. So how do you determine if this would be a marriage or a civil union? And what if one person believes in God and the other believes in multiple gods? Maybe one person sees it as a religious ceremony and one as a declaration of their love to friends and family. How do you determine if its a civil union or a marriage?
 
You know, I am really torn on this. Why? Because when was who got married any of the government's damn business anyways? When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses. If my wife and I had to get married again, we would just do it, and give the government a big, fat, middle finger, by not registering and getting their damn license. We would be married, whether or not the government approved of it. It's not their domain, and they have absolutely no say in it.
I freaking love you, man. Thanks for really distilling down exactly why the whole government interference in this subject thing is so offensive to me. It is NONE OF THE GUMMINT's BUSINESS who I marry. The only thing that matters is that I file my taxes and that I don't break any laws.

The fact that conservatives have gotten themselves into the middle of people's private business is...anti-conservative.
 
I think written licenses go back about 200 years but 'licenses' as the forefathers and earlier people would have interpreted them were usually public declarations of marriage.
A declaration implies something very different than a licence. The former says "Hey everybody, guess what?" while the latter says "Hey everybody, is it okay if we.."
 
Last edited:
You know, I am really torn on this. Why? Because when was who got married any of the government's damn business anyways? When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses. If my wife and I had to get married again, we would just do it, and give the government a big, fat, middle finger, by not registering and getting their damn license. We would be married, whether or not the government approved of it. It's not their domain, and they have absolutely no say in it.
Government recognition is an option, not a requirement. The government could care less if you want to give it a "big, fat, middle finger."

These days, any gay couple can get married in the sense of our forefathers. If they want to "just do it without a license" nobody is going to come after them. That type of marriage exists today for everyone, does it not?
 
Which will not happen any time soon in this country. Dealing with the country as it is now, marriage is a particular thing, and gays want a part of that thing, which seems reasonable to me.
it's still all semantics, really.
 
it's still all semantics, really.

No, it very clearly is not semantics. Marriage has legal meaning and legal benefits. That is not semantics.
 
Back
Top Bottom