Republicans on Gays: What's the Problem?

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

If gay marriage was really about rights then civil unions would have ended the debate as they would provide the rights that homosexuals say they want/deserve. The problem is that they seek social acceptance, not rights.

 

[JustineCredible]

If gay marriage was really about rights then civil unions would have ended the debate as they would provide the rights that homosexuals say they want/deserve. The problem is that they seek social acceptance, not rights.

What you and others like you fail to understand is the basic concept of "Seperate but equal is NOT equal."
Legally unions between heterosexual couples are called under law, "MARRIAGE"...therefore attempts to seperate heterosexual legal unions from homosexual legal unions by means of a seperate title is in fact SEPERATE. Plain and simple.

Your argument is reminessent of those who opposed interracial marriage.
http://www.buddybuddy.com/price-1.html


"First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a prison sentence. Throughout most of our nation’s history, interracial couples in most states broke the law if they dared to marry.
Judges, long seeing the supposed crime of interracial marriage as a threat to the natural order of things, reacted with stern sermonettes that today give us a window back to a human rights controversy that in many ways parallels the current legal battle for same-sex marriage.

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate,” a Georgia judge declared in 1869, forbidding a white Frenchman and a black woman to marry.

“Such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good,” he added.

Taking racism even further, a Missouri judge handed down an 1883 ruling based on the preposterous notion that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring: “It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.”

Loving Vs. Virginia (as enumerated by Chief Justice Warren) declared that:

"The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages. "


Key to this would be to change a few words and see that in fact it does indeed apply equally to the current issue of gay marriage.
ie

Whites = Straights
Negros = Gays
Race and Racial = Sexual orientation


The fourteenth amendment is clear in that:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

the idea of a legal union does not give all rights to gays and lesbians , and if it was just about rights then i'm sure that they would have been happy a while ago but it's not even about that. I really can't say because i'm not a member of the gay community nor do i speak on their behalf i can only say that if the legal union wasnt working then obviously it wasn't what they wanted. Marriage, to be spoken of and about as a married couple as two husbands or two wives , thats what this is coming down to and politicians have been putting this off for years.

 

[JustineCredible]

the idea of a legal union does not give all rights to gays and lesbians , and if it was just about rights then i'm sure that they would have been happy a while ago but it's not even about that. I really can't say because i'm not a member of the gay community nor do i speak on their behalf i can only say that if the legal union wasnt working then obviously it wasn't what they wanted. Marriage, to be spoken of and about as a married couple as two husbands or two wives , thats what this is coming down to and politicians have been putting this off for years.

As a member of the gay community I can back up your assumption. Yes, is really does boil down to a war of words. Granted it does seem pety, but the fact still remains that "Civil Unions" are not equal to Legal Civil Marriage no matter how you :spin: it. Either in what it affords or the words themselves.

Not only am I a member of the gay community, but I'm also one of those many within that community who suffered the "great lie." I really believed that if I lived as a straight person, dated those of the opposite gender even got married and had a family that somehow, magically it would "cure" me of being gay. It didn't, not suprisingly....sexuality cannot be changed. But I digress. My point is, I was legally married once before. I know, first hand what the differences are as far as rights, protections, priveledges and liberties associated with legal marriage.
These things simply aren't afforded to civil unions. The legal recognition, respect and protections just aren't there.

Sure, my partner and I have legal durrable power of attorney for each other, but we PAID for that, and it can be contested more easily than if we were legally married.

If for some strange reason I was to be arrested through my activist activities, my partner could be called to testify against me. If we were legally married, no court could ever force her to do so.

My partner can take my son to the doctor if he's sick, but cannot discuss health issues with the doctor in my absence. But if we were legally married, there would be no issue.

If for some reason in the future (when we get old that is) my partner or I need longterm healthcare in a longterm facility, neither of us could live with the other. But if we were legally married, we can.

If something were to happen to either of us, in which we were to die, the other would not be able to claim Social Security Survivor benefits. But, if we were legally married, we could.

Granted in our home state we cannot be denied a hotel/motel room as a lesbian couple, although in half of all states there are no protections for gay/lesbian couples in as far as employment or housing non-discrimination policies.

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

As a member of the gay community I can back up your assumption. Yes, is really does boil down to a war of words. Granted it does seem pety, but the fact still remains that "Civil Unions" are not equal to Legal Civil Marriage no matter how you :spin: it. Either in what it affords or the words themselves.

Not only am I a member of the gay community, but I'm also one of those many within that community who suffered the "great lie." I really believed that if I lived as a straight person, dated those of the opposite gender even got married and had a family that somehow, magically it would "cure" me of being gay. It didn't, not suprisingly....sexuality cannot be changed. But I digress. My point is, I was legally married once before. I know, first hand what the differences are as far as rights, protections, priveledges and liberties associated with legal marriage.
These things simply aren't afforded to civil unions. The legal recognition, respect and protections just aren't there.

Sure, my partner and I have legal durrable power of attorney for each other, but we PAID for that, and it can be contested more easily than if we were legally married.

If for some strange reason I was to be arrested through my activist activities, my partner could be called to testify against me. If we were legally married, no court could ever force her to do so.

My partner can take my son to the doctor if he's sick, but cannot discuss health issues with the doctor in my absence. But if we were legally married, there would be no issue.

If for some reason in the future (when we get old that is) my partner or I need longterm healthcare in a longterm facility, neither of us could live with the other. But if we were legally married, we can.

If something were to happen to either of us, in which we were to die, the other would not be able to claim Social Security Survivor benefits. But, if we were legally married, we could.

Granted in our home state we cannot be denied a hotel/motel room as a lesbian couple, although in half of all states there are no protections for gay/lesbian couples in as far as employment or housing non-discrimination policies.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU thank you justine_credible for you are one of the few voices of reason in this country. I am discovering more and more that twisted politicians are trying to change things around by saying that all gay and lesbian couples that want to get marrried wish to do so because it's better for taxes or something along that lines, i don't believe it is but i'm not sure. Even if it is better for tax purposes or not, to actually say that gays and lesbians want to get married because of that is completely outrageous. Like i said before i'm not a member of the gay community and i can't speak on anyones behalf but i do have friends who are lesbian and gay and to not only see their innner struggle to let people know they are gay or a lesbian , to see them come out to everyone and then still after making that brave leap , still be denied something as beautiful as marriage, the official announcing that you want to be with this person linked eternally for the rest of your life. Love is something that knows to bias, love isn't a republican, a democrat , a liberal or conservative, or anything. Love doesn't make appearances on MSNBC or FOX. Love is the one thing that brings people together and yet politicians choose to ignore and it make gay marriage about something that i don't believe it is. Please let me know if i'm right or wrong because i do want to learn from all of this.

 

[JustineCredible]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU thank you justine_credible for you are one of the few voices of reason in this country. I am discovering more and more that twisted politicians are trying to change things around by saying that all gay and lesbian couples that want to get marrried wish to do so because it's better for taxes or something along that lines, i don't believe it is but i'm not sure. Even if it is better for tax purposes or not, to actually say that gays and lesbians want to get married because of that is completely outrageous. Like i said before i'm not a member of the gay community and i can't speak on anyones behalf but i do have friends who are lesbian and gay and to not only see their innner struggle to let people know they are gay or a lesbian , to see them come out to everyone and then still after making that brave leap , still be denied something as beautiful as marriage, the official announcing that you want to be with this person linked eternally for the rest of your life. Love is something that knows to bias, love isn't a republican, a democrat , a liberal or conservative, or anything. Love doesn't make appearances on MSNBC or FOX. Love is the one thing that brings people together and yet politicians choose to ignore and it make gay marriage about something that i don't believe it is. Please let me know if i'm right or wrong because i do want to learn from all of this.

Justice:

Indeed. You hit the nail on the head there.

My partner and I have built a life together, through love and committment. We have raise a child together, in honesty and with values.
We have never once been unfaithful or "cheated" on each other.
We are there for each other in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, til death do us part!
All we are asking for is the recongition by law, that our relationship is NO DIFFERENT than any other life commitment between couples of opposite genders.
We didn't choose to be gay, we only chose to live our lives honestly and without shame.
We pay our taxes, go to work, raise a family, voluteer in our community, care for our neighbors as well as our families.
What makes our union different than any other "marriage"? Oh that's right...that little thing called being gay!

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

justine: i admire your words, and commend you on your skill with the english language. Your writing is (keeping this short) very good. I feel your struggle though there shouldn't be one, this shouldn't be a country founded for the people by the people and yet the people seem to be the last ones heard if there is anytime and there hardly ever is. Where it seems more like the civil war then a country of peace. I have been reading up on all things leading to all the wars of our time and before our time, and it seems like things are coming to that point again. I don't want to say that there is going to be another american civil war because i do not enjoy war, i've never been in a war but i do feel like everyday is becoming a war in it's own respect. I know i am younger than you and to the politicians of today, most of them anyway, my voice doesn't matter, but i do feel we as a country need more voices like you in the courts, the senate and everywhere. I don't mean a gay , or straight or lesbian , or democratic , or repu blican, i mean a voice of reason and i thnk thats what you are. If there is any confusion , me saying your a voice of reason is a good thing.

 

[JustineCredible]

justine: i admire your words, and commend you on your skill with the english language. Your writing is (keeping this short) very good. I feel your struggle though there shouldn't be one, this shouldn't be a country founded for the people by the people and yet the people seem to be the last ones heard if there is anytime and there hardly ever is. Where it seems more like the civil war then a country of peace. I have been reading up on all things leading to all the wars of our time and before our time, and it seems like things are coming to that point again. I don't want to say that there is going to be another american civil war because i do not enjoy war, i've never been in a war but i do feel like everyday is becoming a war in it's own respect. I know i am younger than you and to the politicians of today, most of them anyway, my voice doesn't matter, but i do feel we as a country need more voices like you in the courts, the senate and everywhere. I don't mean a gay , or straight or lesbian , or democratic , or repu blican, i mean a voice of reason and i thnk thats what you are. If there is any confusion , me saying your a voice of reason is a good thing.

Thank you very much Justice:

What I am is an American. I believe wholeheartedly in the ongoing experiment we call our form of government; A Democratic Republic.
I believe in our Constitution's intent to protect the rights of all citizens. I believe that descrimination of any one group of people for reasons that are not applied to anyother group are wrong.

I guess it has a lot to do with when I grew up and where.

I may not like what the "anti" side has to say, but even so I will defend with my life their right to say it...just not their right to deny me my civil rights.

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

Thank you very much Justice:

What I am is an American. I believe wholeheartedly in the ongoing experiment we call our form of government; A Democratic Republic.
I believe in our Constitution's intent to protect the rights of all citizens. I believe that descrimination of any one group of people for reasons that are not applied to anyother group are wrong.

I guess it has a lot to do with when I grew up and where.

I may not like what the "anti" side has to say, but even so I will defend with my life their right to say it...just not their right to deny me my civil rights.

the last line of your post was something i have been waiting to hear from someone , anyone , and you said it. Even when faced with a problem you will fight for both sides so long as nobody is stepping on the others toes and denying the civil rights of any people or people's. How great it is to hear that- i think it's something every politician should live by. maybe not everyone but hey i can dream can't I

 

[JustineCredible]

the last line of your post was something i have been waiting to hear from someone , anyone , and you said it. Even when faced with a problem you will fight for both sides so long as nobody is stepping on the others toes and denying the civil rights of any people or people's. How great it is to hear that- i think it's something every politician should live by. maybe not everyone but hey i can dream can't I

You better believe you can, it was dreamers like us who built this nation! Unfortunately generations later the GOP is single handedly trying to destroy it while everyone (well not everyone, but the majority) just sits on their hands and do nothing to protect what's really at stake here...OUR CONSTITUTION!

{Voltaire probably never said these exact words. They were written in 1906 by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (pseud. S. G. Tallentyre) in the biography "The Friends of Voltaire". The author did not attribute the words to Voltaire, but used them to sum up Voltaire's attitude:

" 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now. "}

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

the quality of a person who talks but doesn't act is - speaking
the quality of a person who acts but doesn't talk is - action

talk, act, and you will accomplish anything you set out to do .







justice
because it's worth fighting for

 

[LaMidRighter]

This is kind of sad, but there was a anti-gay marriage group that actually had the nerve to blame the concept of gay marriage for ruining the institution of heterosexual marriage, me being an independent thinker. I had to laugh because looking at the increase of divorce rates and infidelity among straight couples in this country, I think heterosexuals are doing a fine job of ruining the institution.

 

[JustineCredible]

This is kind of sad, but there was a anti-gay marriage group that actually had the nerve to blame the concept of gay marriage for ruining the institution of heterosexual marriage, me being an independent thinker. I had to laugh because looking at the increase of divorce rates and infidelity among straight couples in this country, I think heterosexuals are doing a fine job of ruining the institution.

Of course, they've been ruining their little "institution" since time in memorium. The worst that could actually happen by allowing gay marriage is that there actually might just be MORE MARRIAGES!...

OMG WHAT A TERRIBLE THING! ​

{sarcasm} :2bigcry:​

 

[aquapub]

There is a perfectly good reason to oppose gay marriage. I know the ever-secular, relativism-promoting hedonists of the left don't place any value on much beyond their own stagnant comfort zones, but the mainstream in this country (as demonstrated in numerous nationwide polls leading up to Election 2004 by 60%-70% majorities) views marriage as either sacred or at least of significant worth to them.

Now, I know that marriage is not a tangible, visible thing you can hold in your hand, so I fully expect liberals to be baffled by the concept of placing an actual priority on a purely intellectual construct like marriage, but Republicans, like the vast majority of the country, do not want to undefine marriage, making it meaningless.

The reason I do not want to let gays undefine marriage is the same reason I don't ask the government to undefine race so that I can get a free education from the United Negro College Fund...

I AM NOT BLACK. It would be stupid.

Gays need to stop asking the government to force their inclusion into a Judeo-Christian ritual that, by definition, doesn't allow them. Gays feel left out cause they don't get to be a part of something they don't belong in? So the Hell what?

Some gay marriage proponents argue that all they want is spousal health care benefits and that this is a fight for EQUAL rights, but insurance companies aren't even required to cover heterosexual spouses if they don't want to, so legally undefining marriage to include people who don't belong in it so that companies will have to offer spousal benefits to gays IS a SPECIAL right-which is almost always what you find when you read the fine print in liberal arguments.

Let them have actual equality. Let them have civil unions.

And mark my words, when the unaccountable, unelected liberal fanatics running our courts find a way to force minority rule down the throats of the demonstrably pro-marriage majority and legalize the undefining of marriage, there will be legal aftershocks including attempts to use the legalizing of gay marriage as a stepping stone to legitimizing polygamy.

 

[LaMidRighter]

There is a perfectly good reason to oppose gay marriage. I know the ever-secular, relativism-promoting hedonists of the left don't place any value on much beyond their own stagnant comfort zones, but the mainstream in this country (as demonstrated in numerous nationwide polls leading up to Election 2004 by 60%-70% majorities) views marriage as either sacred or at least of significant worth to them.

I'm not going to debate this one cause I am just not that informed on polling data concerning the topic.

Gays need to stop asking the government to force their inclusion into a Judeo-Christian ritual that, by definition, doesn't allow them. Gays feel left out cause they don't get to be a part of something they don't belong in? So the Hell what?

Just about every belief system has a ceremony regarding marriage, so to say that because certain christian sects don't recognize same sex unions is not a reason to ban them altogether, the only problem I would have is if a church would be forced to perform a ceremony, other than that, two people of the same sex getting married has no effect on my life or well being whatsoever, so there is no reason for me to care either way.

Some gay marriage proponents argue that all they want is spousal health care benefits and that this is a fight for EQUAL rights, but insurance companies aren't even required to cover heterosexual spouses if they don't want to, so legally undefining marriage to include people who don't belong in it so that companies will have to offer spousal benefits to gays IS a SPECIAL right-which is almost always what you find when you read the fine print in liberal arguments.

I don't completely agree with that, I think equal social status is the main reason most in that community want gay marriage, which is not an unfair request in my book.

Let them have actual equality. Let them have civil unions.

I said the same thing until it was pointed out that civil unions are a limited protection.

And mark my words, when the unaccountable, unelected liberal fanatics running our courts find a way to force minority rule down the throats of the demonstrably pro-marriage majority and legalize the undefining of marriage, there will be legal aftershocks including attempts to use the legalizing of gay marriage as a stepping stone to legitimizing polygamy.

Liberal courts are a problem in all areas of American life, this issue does have merit however.

 

[JustineCredible]

There is a perfectly good reason to oppose gay marriage. I know the ever-secular, relativism-promoting hedonists of the left don't place any value on much beyond their own stagnant comfort zones, but the mainstream in this country (as demonstrated in numerous nationwide polls leading up to Election 2004 by 60%-70% majorities) views marriage as either sacred or at least of significant worth to them.

Polls stink. I would go into more detail, but the truth is they're biased.
Most polls are targeted towards specific audiences to solicite desired results.
In short...POLLS STINK.

Now, I know that marriage is not a tangible, visible thing you can hold in your hand, so I fully expect liberals to be baffled by the concept of placing an actual priority on a purely intellectual construct like marriage,

Gotta stop you right there.
Mainly because you are simply misrepresenting facts.
The fact is Concervative Christians retain the HIGHEST Divorce rates nationwide!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

So don't try that tune on me, I know better.

but Republicans, like the vast majority of the country, do not want to undefine marriage, making it meaningless.

No, of course not, because they're doing a fine job of that all on their own. No need for anyone else to help them out on that front.

The reason I do not want to let gays undefine marriage is the same reason I don't ask the government to undefine race so that I can get a free education from the United Negro College Fund...

Oye. First off, your use of the word "undefine" is obtuse. What you should have used was; "redefine."
Which by the way, has been done several times throughout history. So get used to it.

Also your use of an anaology to race is misdirected. Brown vs. The Board of Education has already tackled that issue.
Again, deal with it.

Gays need to stop asking the government to force their inclusion into a Judeo-Christian ritual that, by definition, doesn't allow them.

Ok, here's a news flash for you. Judeo-Christians do not hold the copywrite to marriage. Marriage, in the legal sence, is specifically SECULAR.
As far as religion goes, Judeo-Christians aren't the only ones who get married. Just a factiod for ya there.
Also, one more thing you may not have been aware of, but there are several "Judeo-Christian" churches who do not agree with the denial of gay marriage and do sanctify such unions.
Oh and before I forget, the government has nothing to do with religious cerimonies. I guess the seperation of Church as State must be a concept you're unfamiliar with.

Gays feel left out cause they don't get to be a part of something they don't belong in? So the Hell what?

Oh yeah, that's nice, you whine and throw a temper tantrum about "christian values" but then throw foul language around. Nice way to get your point across.

No, gays feel left out because very simply...THEY ARE!
It's a SECUAL LEGAL CONTRACT, being denied to a specific group of citizens, unconstitutionally.
What part of that are you unclear on? I'll be happy to clerify for you.

Some gay marriage proponents argue that all they want is spousal health care benefits and that this is a fight for EQUAL rights, but insurance companies aren't even required to cover heterosexual spouses if they don't want to, so legally undefining marriage to include people who don't belong in it so that companies will have to offer spousal benefits to gays IS a SPECIAL right-which is almost always what you find when you read the fine print in liberal arguments.

Actually there are over 1,300 rights, priveledges and protections attached to marriage in over 13 different legal concepts. Again, I'll be happy to go over them with you in more detail if you need it.

Let them have actual equality. Let them have civil unions.

Civil Unions are NOT EQUAL. Plain and Simple. See above responce paragraph for reference.
Ps. as set by "Loving vs. Virginia" "SEPERATE BUT EQUAL IS NOT EQUAL"

When will you people get that through your heads?

And mark my words, when the unaccountable, unelected liberal fanatics running our courts find a way to force minority rule down the throats of the demonstrably pro-marriage majority and legalize the undefining of marriage, there will be legal aftershocks including attempts to use the legalizing of gay marriage as a stepping stone to legitimizing polygamy.

WARNING!
SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY ALERT!​

Did interracial marriage lead to polygamy or bestiality? No? Oh, well then. What on earth makes you think that suddenly gay marriage would do so?
Give me a break.
Your argument here is really old and tired. It was tried against allowing women to marry, it didn't happen.
It was tried against interracial marriage, it didn't happen.
Heck, it was even tried against abolishing slavery!
You know what? It didn't happen.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Polls stink. I would go into more detail, but the truth is they're biased.
Most polls are targeted towards specific audiences to solicite desired results.
In short...POLLS STINK.

You are absolutely right on that, polls simply use statistics to "prove" a point of view will be accepted by the public, but statistics often are misleading when honestly obtained and blatantly falsified many times.

Gotta stop you right there.
Mainly because you are simply misrepresenting facts.
The fact is Concervative Christians retain the HIGHEST Divorce rates nationwide!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

So don't try that tune on me, I know better.

I am a straight, christian conservative and have to admit, you are correct.

No, of course not, because they're doing a fine job of that all on their own. No need for anyone else to help them out on that front.

Ouch! but I do agree, personally, I have said I'm getting married once, so, hopefully it will go well, but not everyone thinks that way and it is making a mockery out of marriage, letting gays and lesbians marry can't possibly do more damage than we have already done.

Also, one more thing you may not have been aware of, but there are several "Judeo-Christian" churches who do not agree with the denial of gay marriage and do sanctify such unions.

I believe the Episcopalians, and some of the unorthodox Baptists may be an example, but not sure.

 

[JustineCredible]

You are absolutely right on that, polls simply use statistics to "prove" a point of view will be accepted by the public, but statistics often are misleading when honestly obtained and blatantly falsified many times.

Indeed, it bothers me to no end when folks attempt to use poll results as a credible sourse.

I am a straight, christian conservative and have to admit, you are correct.

You know what's funny? My parents are (obviously) Straight, Christian but very Liberal. They've never cheated on each other or seperated for any length of time...and fourty-two years later, they're still married. They are both each other's "First" in more ways than one.
The same holds true for my brother and his wife, my Aunts and Uncles on both sides of my family, and many other family members. I'm the first and ONLY devorce' in the family.

Ouch! but I do agree, personally, I have said I'm getting married once, so, hopefully it will go well, but not everyone thinks that way and it is making a mockery out of marriage, letting gays and lesbians marry can't possibly do more damage than we have already done.

Trust me, I didn't say it to wound anyone's egos at all, it's simply a fact of life that just needs to be accepted for what it is.
I too intended to marry only once in my life. But alas, it was not to be for me.
Actually I was the first in my family to devorce, on either side. I'm not proud of this fact, but I have come to terms with the fact that my first marriage was obviously simply practice for the relationship of my life.

I believe the Episcopalians, and some of the unorthodox Baptists may be an example, but not sure.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/blessing.html

A Quick List of U.S. Religious Denominations that have​

Endorsed or Held Ceremonies for Same-Sex Couples​

Individual congregations may vary.​

American Apostolic Catholic Church
American Catholic Church International
American Baptist
American Ethical Union
Anglican - Canadian diocese
Bretheren/Mennonite
Buddhist
California Council of Churches
Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA)
Covenant of the Goddess (Wiccan)
Episcopal Church
Evangelican Anglican Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran
(The Greater Milwaukee Synod became the first ELCA
synod to endorse blessing same-sex unions in 2000)
Hawaii Council of Churches
Humanist Society
(was Humanist Society of Friends)
Reconciling Congregations (United Methodist)
Reconstructionist Jewish
Reformed Catholic Church (USA)
Reform Judaism
(Central Conference of American Rabbis affirms
the legalization of same-sex marriage)
Methodist
Metropolitan Community Church
Orthodox Catholic Church
Presbyterian Church (affirms the legalization of same-sex marriage)
Quaker (Society of Friends)
Secular Humanistic Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
(As of April 2000, 321 of its 6,100 congregations
have declared they welcome gay men and lesbians)
Unity Fellowship Churches
Universal Life Church


Another interesting tid-bit:
http://www.rense.com/general50/cath.htm
The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell

Bellow is an exerpt of an anciet Catholic rite for same-sex couples.
http://members.aol.com/drswiney/unions.html
I will quote one for you, in abbreviated form, so as not to violate copyright:

15. BELGRADE [date uncertain; before the 18t century] [Serbian Slavonic]

The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men

i
The priest shall place the right hand of the elder upon the holy Gospel and upon that of the younger. Then: Blessed be God, now and forever and ever. Amen……

ii
Our father who art in heaven …..

iii
Hymn of he church …

iv
Then shall the priest take the holy belt and tie it around them. And they that are about to be joined shall hold the holy belt in their left hands.

v
O lord, Our God, who hast vouchased unto us the promise of salvation …accept Thou these thy two servants, N. and N. who love each other with a love of the spirit, and have desired to come into thy holy church, and grant unto them hope, unashamed faithfulness and true love….

vi
..Thou also didst deem it proper for the holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus to be united….Bless Thou these thy servants. Grant unto them grace and prosperity, and faith and love; let them love each other without envy and without temptation all the days of their life….

vii
…For these thy servants [and] for their being joined unto each other, we beseech Thee, O Lord. That the Lord our God unite them in perfect love and inseparable life, we bessech Thee, O Lord. For the presanctified gift of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they receive it without sin and that it preserve their union without envy, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

ix
[The First Epistle of] the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians….. Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

xi
Then: Peace be with you. Then shall the priest kiss them. And the two that are to be joined shall kiss each other.

xx
…And he shall dismiss them.

Here is another example:

10. SIANI 966 [thirteenth century] [Greek]

Order for Solemnization of Same-Sex Union

i
Those intending to be united shall come before the priest….shall place his hand on the Gospel, and the second on the hand of the first…

iv
Lord our God and ruler….who didst commend the union of thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus…do Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one another and abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives…

v
…Grant them unashamed faithfulness, true love….

vi
…accept now these Thy servants N. and N to be united in spirit and faith…to prosper in virtue and justice and in sincere love…

vii
…that they be joined together more in spirit than in flesh…

ix
And they shall kiss the holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.

Why have I not heard more about these ceremonies?

The book did make quite a splash when published; but John Boswell died that year from a prolonged illness; the book is intended for scholars and as such is a difficult read. That area of expertise is a narrow one with few medieval-historical-linguists familiar enough with the subject at that time.

Can you refer me to additional information?

Well - I would begin with Boswell’s book. Then too, there is a web site that contains an exhaustive list of Boswell related material, evenly divided between the supportive and the critical at: People with a History: John Boswell Page

From the point of view of church history I would recommend an article by Ted Mollegen concerning notes on a talk given by Dr. Boswell at a luncheon during General Convention July, 1988 Detroit, Michigan

 

[LaMidRighter]

Trust me, I didn't say it to wound anyone's egos at all, it's simply a fact of life that just needs to be accepted for what it is.

Don't sweat it, I was just trying to make a little funny with the ouch comment. But you were absolutely correct on that point.

 

[LaMidRighter]

This thread actually reminded me of an idea I had about a year and a half back. I wanted to open a gay bar and grill in my home town because even though I am straight, I am also a businessman and one rule of business is that if you can find a low competition market, go for it. There are I think three gay clubs in my area so it would give one more option and one that actually serves food and is conducive to conversation. My idea came about because I remember a few things about the Louisiana gay community, they love to entertain, have friends they party with every weekend from a tri-state area(great customer base), and are not cheap about their expenditures. I would actually like to have a member of the gay community to be the general manager because there are intricacies in the community that I do not understand, but I mention this to explain that I am a republican with no reservations about the community.

 

[JustineCredible]

This thread actually reminded me of an idea I had about a year and a half back. I wanted to open a gay bar and grill in my home town because even though I am straight, I am also a businessman and one rule of business is that if you can find a low competition market, go for it. There are I think three gay clubs in my area so it would give one more option and one that actually serves food and is conducive to conversation. My idea came about because I remember a few things about the Louisiana gay community, they love to entertain, have friends they party with every weekend from a tri-state area(great customer base), and are not cheap about their expenditures. I would actually like to have a member of the gay community to be the general manager because there are intricacies in the community that I do not understand, but I mention this to explain that I am a republican with no reservations about the community.

Honestly, I think it's a FABULOUS idea!
You really should run with it!
It's true, gays will gravitate to any place specifically targeting their patronage.
It's also true that the Gay Community in general LOVES to entertain, and don't skimp on details.
But I agree, you will need a "gay liason" to help you understand what is hot and what is not in that community.
Even so, I really do think it would be a terrific venture and you should do well, as long as you keep up with the ever changing trends, especially in the gay community...they change as fast as the wind blows. What was hot one day will be der regre the very next.
The gay community loves to entertain and BE entertained. We love chatty wait staff with great personality. We appreciate personal touches more than you can imagine.
We have a bit more daring palates and love to try new things, but appreciate standards.
I would be happy to consult if you need more info.
I have twenty plus years working in and around the gay community, five plus years in the restuarant business and am Badger Certified in alcohol service industry standards. (along with fifteen years bar tending experience for a catering company)
Please IM/PM me if you'ld like to talk more.

 

[RightinNYC]

Me being a Republican, I'm probably in the minority regarding homosexuals. I know many, I'm friends with many, I'm close with many. I don't have a problem with many because they are gay. The fact that they are gay is a non-issue with me.

You don't have to believe me, but I grew up in very conservative households. My Dad served almost 27 years in the U.S. Navy, and believe you me he made damn sure we all knew it. Very much so the disciplinarian and military-runned. My grandparents made sure we attended Mass every Sunday; attended every May and October Devotion; said the Rosary every day after dinner; any other church-related function going on, we were there. My young life involved anything Navy and anything Catholic.

Maybe it was rebellion, maybe it was curiosity of society, maybe I didn't want to be an ignorant person, but somewhere along the way, despite the fact that I'm very aware of the Bible and Leviticus and religious teaching and societal responses to men and women who are gay, I've grown to not have any issue with a person who is attracted emotionally, spiritually, sexually, romantically with someone of the same gender.

I know I'm not going into great detail as to why I don't have an issue with men and women that are gay. I'll add on as this topic is being discussed by y'all.

To the Republicans: What is/are the reason(s) that prevent (for lack of a better term) you from establishing a healthy friendship with a gay person? Is it "guilt by association"? Is there a stigma of being friends with one?

Perhaps this is just ignorance talking, but I didn't know there were still people around who thought that there WERE reasons to avoid friendships with homosexuals, aside from old homophobes...

 

[flip2]

RightAtNYU, I hope you're just being sarcastic and fecetious again. Surely, you must be kidding? I know you go to NYU, but I'm certain you've met some people from our generation who have serious reasons to avoid friendship, hell, even contact, with a homosexual.

 

[JustineCredible]

Perhaps this is just ignorance talking, but I didn't know there were still people around who thought that there WERE reasons to avoid friendships with homosexuals, aside from old homophobes...

Um, I guess you're just so wrapped up in NYU that you forget there are still pockets of Bubble-dom that still think that cats steal a baby's breath, that a nail in a tree will stop Dutch Elm disease and gal's can't get pregnant "The first time."

It's called superstition and it's prevalent in many cultures.

 

[RightinNYC]

RightAtNYU, I hope you're just being sarcastic and fecetious again. Surely, you must be kidding? I know you go to NYU, but I'm certain you've met some people from our generation who have serious reasons to avoid friendship, hell, even contact, with a homosexual.

I had a few kids I knew from high school who "hated fuc*ing faggots" but aside from that....not really.

Even the few kids who I know who are very morally opposed to homosexuality have homosexual friends and treat them no differently that I can see.