Send Message to
serious question about same-gender oriented persons as legal couple based on human right
i am going to london for international gay pride. now some will ask why i dont say 'gay marriage'. firstly and in my opinion, 'gay' include too many politics not all agree with. mainly however, if 'gay' cover all in community why we say 'lgbtq'? now many know i am aspie so this may sound so literal and all black/white ~ no it is valid comment on the term. so now on another term, 'marriage'. to me (and i have talk about me faith here before) marriage is a word that define a 'holy rite' and this may upset many who might otherwise say, 'no, america is a democracy with constitution so live and let live' you know?
i have mention this before but now let me make personal. i want the human right of being in 'legal relationship' that non-discriminatory against same-gender couples. we have separation of church and state (which mean freedom of religion not from it) so how can expect state to legalize 'holy rite' based in largest faiths of world? this why i say 'legal relationship' that does not cross the line of church/state and since legal, use the language of law that is still (in usa) latin: matrimony comes from matrimonium means same thing as marriage.
so, i want to hear from people that would support same-gender leaders come back to washington and all organizatiosn to unite in calling for federal law similar to the doma, let that law stand but create a law like it called 'right to matrimony act' or 'rtma' for both house of legislature to pass and forget all this state voting stuff. in other words, let federal law for marriage stand and create equal law to let matrimony to exist and all states abide by it. please do not compare this to separate but equal. this means same and equal only. thank you for constructive and positive comments and i will bring these to london when i go on 6 july for big day on 7 july (also me birthday #21 and time to take on new responsibilities :)
i have mention this before but now let me make personal. i want the human right of being in 'legal relationship' that non-discriminatory against same-gender couples. we have separation of church and state (which mean freedom of religion not from it) so how can expect state to legalize 'holy rite' based in largest faiths of world? this why i say 'legal relationship' that does not cross the line of church/state and since legal, use the language of law that is still (in usa) latin: matrimony comes from matrimonium means same thing as marriage.
so, i want to hear from people that would support same-gender leaders come back to washington and all organizatiosn to unite in calling for federal law similar to the doma, let that law stand but create a law like it called 'right to matrimony act' or 'rtma' for both house of legislature to pass and forget all this state voting stuff. in other words, let federal law for marriage stand and create equal law to let matrimony to exist and all states abide by it. please do not compare this to separate but equal. this means same and equal only. thank you for constructive and positive comments and i will bring these to london when i go on 6 july for big day on 7 july (also me birthday #21 and time to take on new responsibilities :)
I don't think it is being PC to suggest that a gay union with all the same rights (as we have in uk) is better not called marriage... to insist on the name is to my mind just being unnecessarily provocative.
"I have experienced both a long straight marriage with children and a UK civil partnership so perhaps my opinion is worth considering... To put it simply, for 2000 odd years marriage in most languages has meant a heterosexual arrangement regardless of religion and I think it is unnecessarily provocative of gay people to insist that their 100% equivalent arrangement is also called marriage..you cannot expect to change the meaning of a very important word overnight without objections. So I say by all means fight for equal rights for gay couples (if that does not already exist where you live) but don't provoke strong and understandable opposition by insisting it is called marriage...in common speech it just is not.