Gays who wish to marry should just do so anyways

[Kaleva]

even if the state they reside in does not recognize such a union. Put an announcement in the paper, have the ceremony conducted by a member of the clergy willing to do so, and put on a reception. As far as I know, there is no law that prohibits such from taking place.

When I married my wife, I did so solely because I loved her and wanted to be with her for the rest of my life and to publicly let others know that by having the marriage ceremony. The possible benefits and liabilities of the union I did not give a damn about. All I remember of the marriage watching my wife walking down the aisle and of us holding hands and looking into each other's eyes as we said our vows. Everything else is just a fog.

[Matariki]

1. That's all well and good until you try to get in the hospital to see your spouse.

[WVRICK13]

76. Already Did That

with over 60 straight people in attendance in a small WV town. Felt good to share our love with friends but hey we still don't have legal rights to property, death bed visits, shared insurance etc.

[bigwillq]

2. But they won't get all the benefits of a "straight" marriage

I could care less about the ceremony. Anyone can do that. But it's not equal unless gay couples have ALL of the same rights as straight couples do.

[Horse with no Name]

3. There is ceremony

AND then there are the RIGHTS that come with said ceremony.
Visiting your spouse in the hospital, making end of life decisions, children, insurance benefits...a myriad of things that walking down the aisle in all of its pomp and circumstance doesn't even begin to address.

[msongs]

4. most of those issues can be taken care of with a good power of attorney and a lawyer....

except for tax issues.

Msongs

[Horse with no Name]

5. No. They really can't.

Seriously. They really can't. This couple had ALL of the legal documents. All of them. And their rights were denied.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2009/05/miami-... /
>>>snip
The New York Times reports Janice Langbehn of Washington was unable to be by the bedside of her dying partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond. During a Florida vacation, Pond collapsed with an aneurysm and was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital trauma center, where doctors refused to let Langbehn visit her. Pond died without seeing Langbehn or the couple’s three adopted children.

Gay rights groups, who say same-sex partners often are barred from hospital rooms because they aren’t “real family,” are watching the federal lawsuit in Florida, according to the New York Times.

[PeaceNikki]

7. You're 100% wrong

They have NO protections if anyone in their family contests their will, they are perfectly free to come and grab all their property. If they were legally married, they would not have that risk. And YES, they can spend thousands of dollars drawing up paperwork to try to ensure that doesn't happen, but in states that voted against their rights, lawyers warn that ANY legal document drawn up, because it is trying to "resemble" a marriage, can be easily contested by their families, if they choose. And yes, a ton of tax implications including health care and inheritance.

[Statistical]

23. Not even close.

Inheritance, next of kin, communal property, taxes, health care benefits are just SOME of the issues without marriage equality.

[theHandpuppet]

46. AAARRRGGGHHHHHHHH!!!

[ohheckyeah]

18. I wonder if gays went on and married

the point would get across that denying them the legal rights isn't going to stop them from living together as a married couple. Maybe then the opposition would be rather pointless and people would give it up.

[PeaceNikki]

19. pssst.

They're doing this already.

[ohheckyeah]

62. True.

I don't know what it's going to take to wake people up.

[PeaceNikki]

6. The 1000 plus rights that they are still denied is not "fog".

No matter how much pomp and circumstance. You have it all backwards.

[Kaleva]

10. The marriage probably wouldn't last anyways if one is chiefly concerned about rights.

and making a public proclamation expressing ones' love for another and desire to be with that person for the rest of their life is of secondary importance.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Do you have a clue?

Seriously? Do you even CARE what our fellow citizens are being forced to endure because of idiotic summations such as your own?

[PeaceNikki]

14. You're fucking kidding, right?

[eShirl]

15. like hell.

Mine has lasted 12 years this months. Before my husband got the diagnosis of End Stage Renal Disease, we were perfectly content with the idea of living together for the rest of our lives. Knowing what he faced for the rest of his life, we decided we wanted the rights available to us that only legal marriage can provide.

Why should some couples not be able to do the same just because they happen to have matching genitals? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

[Ignis]

24. And when they won't let you into your spouse's hospital room?

What would you suggest then?

[Kaleva]

28. So you refuse to marry the one you love because sometime in the future..

you may not be allowed in your spouse's hospital room?

[Ignis]

39. That's not at all what I said. That strawman won't hunt. (nt)

[theHandpuppet]

50. You're either being intentionally obtuse

Or you are one of the most clueless posters I have ever encountered on DU. And that's as polite as I can put it.

[uppityperson]

53. They refuse to legally recognize your marriage and won't allow you in your spouses hosp room

why do I get the feeling you are flame baiting?

[uppityperson]

51. bwahahahahahaha! oh wait! you were serious?

NO ONE should ever file the legal documents for being legally married since, if they do, their marriage probably won't last anyways?

[Rockholm]

77. This is an extremely offensive comment.

[flvegan]

8. Yeah, cuz it's really just about the pageantry.

While I agree that if two people want to get married, they should participate in that event however they'd like, but there's a lot more to it than that.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Yeah wtf?

I don't get this at all?
I don't get that some people THINK that it is ONLY a ceremony that people are angry about?
I'd pretty much bet anyone would forgo that wedding dress and take the rights--hands down.

[LeftyMom]

73. I swear, do people honestly think all this effort is over tuxes and white dresses?

I despair of this place sometimes.

[mkultra]

9. its the rights they need, not the ceremony

[Bluenorthwest]

12. People who want to always have. Why would they not?

The fog you speak of is your own lack of comprehension. And your words are interesting. All you remember of the marriage is seeing her walk down the aisle? Must have been a short marriage. What you mean to say, and this is where you go so wrong, is that all you remember of the wedding is her walking down the aisle. That was the wedding, the marriage was all that came after. I bet you remember a few things from your marriage. Be honest.

[mitchtv]

16. when you grow old together

lots of inequities manifest themselves, like having to pay taxes on your spouses benefits and inheriting property. Pay more, get less .

[optimator]

17. single people are discriminated against

why should married people get special treatment

[Kaleva]

20. Follow Rosa Park's example.

She refused to give up her seat. If your state does not recognize same sex marriage, get married (if you and your partner so desire) and be as public as you can about it. Put the announcement in the paper, have an ceremony and reception. Don't just bitch on DU.

[eShirl]

26. People have been doing this for decades now.

Wake up.

[Neecy]

29. My dear Kaleva

I'm going to assume that you're trying to be helpful, to give us a positive alternative to the horrors we've experienced from the Great American Experiment of Democracy that allows nitwits, illiterates, and any form of societal scum to vote on our basic human rights and subsequently deny them.

Did you ever play house as a child? You know, where one person "plays" the husband while another child "plays" the wife? You have a "pretend" wedding ceremony and everyone thinks you're such cute, adorable children. It really doesn't mean anything, you know, but it's just such a sweet facet of childhood.

What you're asking us to do, complete with a sham, pretend slack-jawed "wedding" that everyone will consider adorable but strange at our age is quite honestly patronizing. We're already treated like children who can't control our impulses (DADT). To have a "play" wedding, complete with adoring glimpses of our brides or grooms coming down the aisle really is an infantile approach to the whole situation.

I have friends who have been together for decades and have made homes together. I don't think a "play" wedding will get them the same guaranteed rights that a straight married couple enjoys as a matter of course, but thank you for participating and offering a unique concept that really hadn't occurred to me before tonight. I'll be sure to pass the "play wedding" idea around as I'm sure it will be widely appreciated and considered. Or not.

[Kaleva]

41. Exposure may mean greater acceptance.

I live in Upper Michigan and I've never seen a a gay or lesbian couple announce their engagement, intentions to marry, and to have an reception celebrating their union in a public forum such as a newspaper.

The vows I said at my marriage I take seriously and it wouldn't be "play" even if there had been no legally binding contract to sign after the ceremony. The ring on my finger is just a band of gold but it's a band of gold that has alot of meaning to me.

[Lars39]

47. Call and find out if they even accept those types of announcements

about gay couples. Quite a few newspapers won't print them. That's probably why you've never read of any.

[Kaleva]

58. Which newspapers refuse to print such announcements?

Maybe some here at DU will identify such newspapers that refused to print their announcements.

[Lars39]

60. Educate yourself a bit:

http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=31551

[PeaceNikki]

61. Here you go

http://www.tressugar.com/4018054
http://www.queerty.com/should-you-hate-on-a-newspaper-t... /
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other...
Gay-marriage proponents, as well as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association, have been lobbying newspapers across the nation to print announcements of gay nuptials. Many smaller papers — including the Sun Journal of Lewiston, Maine, the Sunday Citizen of New Hampshire, the Fayetteville Observer of North Carolina, and local community weeklies such as the Melrose Free Press, the Somerville Journal, and the Cambridge Chronicle — have recently begun carrying such announcements. As of now, however, no big-market papers print gay or lesbian wedding announcements, although several are in the process of re-evaluating their current policies. But the big question here is not whether these papers will finally say "I do" to gay-nuptial notices — that, quite frankly, seems inevitable. No, the big question is why this is such a big deal in the first place.

[Egnever]

70. Hmm I was not aware of that

Maybe time to start putting some pressure on them. They are hurting right now as it is, I dont think they can stand up to pressure the way they used to.

I am going to call my local rag tommorrow and ask them about this. I advertise with them regularly.

[Neecy]

55. But you do have a legally binding contract

Really, why would I go through the time and expense to announce my engagement, place an announcement in the paper, and then have this big fancy play wedding that will perhaps make for a nice party but will be little more than an empty sham, a silly little nothing, a desperate attempt to look like I'm really "married" but will fool nobody, including the IRS, the insurance companies, etc etc etc?

I mean --- why? Do we have to go through so many trial runs before we can finally do it for real? What is the point? So people can laugh at it? Hey, lookit! I can't legally marry but I'm going to spend thousands of dollars to pretend that I am! Wheeeeee!

Nutty. Really nutty.

[Kaleva]

64. You do it for the person you love.

The state may not recognize your marriage but you do it anyways. A majority of the members of your community may oppose it but you do it anyways. You may not get any benefits from the federal government but you do it anyways. You may be laughed at and mocked but you do it anyways.

[uppityperson]

66. Did you file your papers with your state? Did you sign them? Why?

"You may not get any benefits", and why? Why stop people from getting the benefits that they deserve by being part of a married couple? Why should a man and woman who marry ONLY for insurance benefits be able to get them when a couple of the same sex can't?

Why can that man and woman who got legally married for insurance benefits visit each other in the emergency room of a hospital, but those who truly deeply love each other cannot SIMPLY because they are the same sex?

[PeaceNikki]

33. Uh huh.

"Don't just bitch on DU."

[theHandpuppet]

52. Don't just bitch on DU because we don't have rights?

Well just kiss my gay ass.

[uppityperson]

54. People have been doing that for a long time. Yet still they don't get the rights.

Don't bitch about not being able to visit your spouse because you are banned since it isn't state sanctioned legal marriage. Gotcha.

good grief

[Zenlitened]

63. jeezuzscreaminchriist you are fuckin' clueless

[Sebastian Doyle]

71. Using your "logic", Rosa Parks would have got off that bus

and sat down in the front seat of an empty bus that wasn't going anywhere, and pretended it was the same thing.

[Zenlitened]

78. LOL. Ding!

[Lex]

21. Yeah, and go ahead and appoint yourself Mayor while you're at it.

The benefits and liabilities of doing that aren't really relevant if you really want to be Mayor.

[Maraya1969]

22. I friggin recommended this and it's still below zero! WTF? I personally

think this is a great idea. I wanted to marry the woman I loved very much unfortunately she died way too young.

But about 10 years after that I got married to a man. I did not love him like I loved her but I loved being married. And I agree 100% what you are saying to all gay couples out there. If you want to get married have a ceremony and a reception. There are plenty of clergy that will marry you if you want one and I found out that here in Florida anyone can marry you.

The point I am trying to make is, even though the marriage did not work out the memories of that day will always be with me and it was truly beautiful. I was 44 at the time and obviously never been married before so I didn't realize how great the "marriage and ceremony and reception" part can be. It is your day to celebrate your love with another person in front of your friends and family.

I really think that you should not wait to have the government tell you when you can get married "legally". I remember Ellen DeGenerous saying that her wedding was the happiest day of her life. Well her wedding was annulled because of California law but I bet she is still happy she had the ceremony.

[Kaleva]

32. I know a lesbian who i do work for on occasion.

Her partner of many decades dies a few years back and she is buried in a local cemetery. The single headstone has both of their names on it and this woman will someday be resting next to her partner for all eternity. While their union was never recognized by Michigan, as far as they were concerned, they were a couple dedicated to each other in life and in death.

[mitchtv]

34. those who got married in Calif when it was legal

are still married, like me. Rosie O;s marriage was annulled because she was married by the county of SF and it wasn't legal,I think Ellen's was.

[Zenlitened]

65. Holy cow. Another one who seems to think it's all about the ceremony.

[Libertas1776]

25. Its so damn easy

for straight people to be so damn cavalier about marriage. It's there for them to take or leave, rights, benefits, privileges and all. They can get married and get divorced over and over and over.

Jeez, if the religious nut bags really wanted to preserve the institution of marriage they would let gays get married and drive down that 50% heterosexual divorce rate overnight.

[Bonobo]

27. Typical DU thread.

OP starts something with the best of intentions and everyone assumes the worst of intentions, imagining slights and insults where none exist.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

37. Typical DU thread.

yeah boneheaded and borderline homophobic

[Withywindle]

38. The OP might have had "the best of intentions" but it's the IGNORANCE that's getting unrecced.

You think gay and lesbian couples HAVEN'T been having wedding ceremonies, sending announcements to any paper that will run them, and living together all their lives for DECADES if not centuries? Of course they have! There are even numerous religious denominations who believe this is right and have been blessing such unions in full church/synagogue/etc. ceremonies for decades.

The fight is NOT about the right to throw a party, have some pretty words recited, and live together in love.

It's about the countless FEDERAL rights and assumptions that any random straight kids can get with a signature and show of ID at any courthouse in the country: the right to visit each other in the hospital, to make medical decisions, to inherit and to decide who gets that inheritance, to raise children together (and to know with some certainty that child won't get whisked off to a state home or some very distant relative if something happens to the blood parent), to adopt, to file joint tax returns, to share Social Security and health insurance benefits, to have your spouse able to get a green card if s/he is a foreign national, to take time off work to care for each other, to be buried together no matter what your other relatives say, AND to have all these rights still apply even if the worst happens in some other state besides the one you live in.

[uppityperson]

56. exactly. For that I k&u. Thank you for putting it so well.

[Starry Messenger]

48. Google exists for a reason

Finding out why this struggle is important would take 5 minutes.

[SmileyRose]

30. Gays????

I really hope you were just clumsy with your subject title. Maybe I'm just in a mood but "gays who wish to ...." just feels a lot like "you people".

I'm glad the romance was enough and the rest was unimportant. Quite frankly, if it was all about the romance then "teh gays" could just exchange tongue bolts on the beach and call it a day. As you well know, marriage is a legal contract between two people and the state. It's responsibilities and benefits are many. I believe you'll find marriage is MUCH more than the romance if you are unfortunate enough to have the romance die in your wedded bliss and decide to end the marriage.

[bridgit]

35. LegalZoom

http://www.legalzoom.com

[Ozymanithrax]

36. A commitment ceremony does not allow your spouse into your...

hospital room if you are dying.

It doesn't gain you social security survivor benefits.

It doesn't grant any of the tax privileges that married couples have.

It doesn't make you the heir to your community property if you should die by accident.

There are a lot of rights and privileges granted to spouses by law.

People of sound mind who are committed to live together in a loving relationship should be able to have that relationship recognized by law and gain all the rights and benefits that the law allows to other married couples.

[Angry Dragon]

40. Question??

How does common law marriage fit in to this??

[Kaleva]

42. That depends on the state.

Michigan does not recognize common law marriage but other states do.

[PeaceNikki]

43. Not many. And all are specific to "man and woman"

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/family_law/common_law....

[Angry Dragon]

44. Neither does Minnesota.....

but I was wondering in the common law states no ceremony is required but do they exclude gay marriages??

[PeaceNikki]

45. Yes. They always have.

[Critters2]

49. I officiate at such weddings with increasing frequency. But I can't sign a license afterwards.

That needs to change.

[uppityperson]

57. "All I remember of the marriage"?don't you mean the wedding?

Or is that seriously all you remember of your married life with her? You are confusing a wedding with a marriage.

[Lex]

59. It's the fog. nt

[Zenlitened]

67. K&R for the sheer vapidity of the premise.

[xchrom]

68. stupid like this doesn't get anymore entertaining. nt

[NMMNG]

69. Visual representation of this thread

Sorry. I don't have the energy right now to deal with the bloody ignorance and cruelty of the OP or other posters who just don't get it. I'll have to let others handle it for me.

[LeftyMom]

72. The point is that people want the legal protections and obligations of marriage, not the overpriced

party in the basement of the VFW hall.

PS People already DO what you're suggesting. Google "commitment ceremony". It ain't the same thing, because your health insurer isn't going to add the love of your life just because your auntie flew in from Peoria and gave you a toaster oven, even if you show them the check stubs for the live band and the $200 cake.

[quaker bill]

75. Quaker Meetings

do not charge, and receptions are generally pot-luck, unless you happen to want something catered. True, it does not provide the rights, something which we would happily do if we could, but this is beyond our power.

[quaker bill]

74. I get the point

300+ years ago, Quakers were not allowed to marry in England unless they paid the tithe, swore the oath, and were married by an Crown licensed Anglican preacher. Quakers, being an unruly sort, married each other under the care of their Meetings anyway. The state did not consider them married, their children were considered "bastards" with no right to inheritance under British law. Whatever property was not seized by the state for non-payment of the tithe, was taken by the state for the lack of "legitimate heirs" when the parents passed (often in prison - for failure to pay the tithe, tip their hat to the King, swear the loyalty oath, and various other similar "seditious" acts).

They kept at it, filled the prisons and remained a general nuisance. At some point, to simply be rid of the nuisance, the crown granted them a colony, now known as Pennsylvannia. In the founding documents of that colony was included a basic right to religious freedom that somewhat modified, 100+ years later, made it into the US Constitution, written as the first was, in Philadelphia (interestingly, the city of brotherly love).

Many Quaker meetings today, like the one I serve as Clerk, have adopted marriage equality as a testimony, and will marry same gender couples on the same basis and procedure we marry mixed gender couples, regardless of the legalities in the particular state in which we reside. We consider and undertake this with the same seriousness and solmenity of any marriage we might take under our care. We find this consistent with our tradition and testimonies for the last 350 years, which includes our own struggle for marriage equality a great many years ago.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Locking

While the opening post may have been meant kindly, subsequent exchanges show this is now a hole being dug deeper and deeper.

"Aspersions cast about like leaves falling from the trees", as my fellow mod rasputin1952 has seasonally put it.