Good As You

Mary Ann - - - let's turn your e-mail around. Say we gays are married and you heteros are civil unioned. Say we have all the bnefits that hetero married folks now have and you take our benefits granted by civil unions - see if you think you have more or not. Remember, you CANNOT file a joint income tax return with your spouse - only ONE BIG thing not available to gays. All unions should be civil - - and called marriage - - all folks wanting a religious blessing should have to get a separate religious ceremony - BUT that ceremony alone would NOT be legal. Thousands of years???? Checking back you will see that many years ago male and male and female and female entered into religious marriage ceremonies. I beg to differ wih you my friend, you do NOT love your circle of gay friends - if you did you would wish only equality for them - - if they know your true feelings, they do NOT love you either. The majority should not legislate the rights of the minority. Also, you DID take away the rights of gay people - the Supreme Court of California said those rights were consitutional. Happy Civil Union, Mary Ann.....

You are not a friend to your gay friends if you voted for Prop 8. Have you told any of them how you voted? How did they react?

You're wrong when you say gays have more rights than straight people -- we don't. Marriage and its attendant 1100+ federal rights and its several hundred state rights are out of reach for most gays. What other rights are you talking about? Any law that applies to sexual orientation is applicable to straights AND gays.

In the voting booth, did you honestly think to yourself, well gays have MORE rights than I do, so "let's just vote away a couple that they're not really using"?

And how would you react if someone took away your rights in an election -- "Oh well, c'est la vie" or "Fight! Fight! Fight!" ? If someone told you your religion was banned -- but you can have this similar religion (same God, right?) -- how would you react? Would you be okay with it as long as the majority voted it that way?

Why can't we share the word marriage? What does "marriage" mean to you? To me, it means spending the rest of my life with the one man I love more than anyone else in the whole wide world, and it means knowing that if either of us is injured or -- heaven forbid -- dies, the other will be able to make important decisions. It means that we don't need to pay lawyers lots of money to draft elaborate wills that may or may not be honored upon death. It means I can go into the hospital and he can simply state "he's my husband" and the relationship is instantly clear. It means that my friends, my family, and my coworkers take my relationship seriously, that it's not a "pretend" family -- we ARE a family, and I will fight to the ends of the earth to protect my husband and that family.

Would you not do the same for you spouse? Why do you see fit to deny me the ability to protect my spouse?

Why can't I do that under a civil union? Well, for one thing, it's NOT the same thing as marriage, although there are lots of anti-gay folks out there who are also anti-CU. But more importantly, it's not portable across state lines, for federal benefits, and because the word "marriage" itself has value that is denied us when we're forced to use a second-class term.

The minister who married us and her religion consider us married, and that was the word she used. Do you deny all marriages from the UCC, or just some? How about Quakers? What about UU? Episcopalians? Those are all churches who marry same-sex couples, whether or not the state recognizes the marriage.

There is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. We have both, but I'm not fighting to make your church recognize my marriage. I'm fighting to make the STATE recognize my marriage. What would you do if suddenly the state stopped recognizing your marriage? What if the state said, well, you can have this other thing, a "domestic partnership." Would you be okay with that? Mind you, not everyone gets a DP, only folks who are left-handed (say).

I could go on. I've been fighting for marriage equality for over a decade, and will continue to do so until I'm no longer able. This was off the top of my head and doesn't begin to demonstrate the anger and pain I'm feeling because of the vote in California. And I'm in Massachusetts, where I _AM_ married, and for longer than many of my straight friends whose marriages have come and gone.

Sorry for the length and ramble, Jeremy.

MaryAnn if you think your relationship is the the same as a gays, then call it a civil union too. If you think 'marriage' is something different and it is, of course, then... then Mary Ann, in California, as Marriage is a Civil Right ....it belongs to EVERYONE...that's EVERYONE Mary Ann..and our STATE's definition of marriage is the legal relationship between two non-related adults to form a lifelong union and household, that may or may not involve having children.
That is EXACTLY what our California Supremem Court adjudged on May 15, 2008.That this right applies to EVERY adult...no matter who they want to marry. You can't change that,
you can't redefine it your way sorry. If it is your right it is everyones. PERIOD. END OF STORY...no amount of 'voting.' can take away rights under our Constitutions.

Oh, sorry JH I responded and I am not immature (born during WWII folks, figure it out yourself)...and am not gay... Just a MORE Active Every Single Day Ally....

PS: Our Tim Lincecum won the CY YOUNG! Of course.

Mary Ann,

In this society we have what is known as a Constitution. States have Constitutions and our Country has a Constitution. Only once has our constitution been amended to take away the rights of others and that was Prohibition; we all know how that turned out.

With what happened in California that most sincerely was taking away the rights of gays and lesbians. The right to get married. Civil Unions are not the same and don't translate across state borders. Marriage is a term that is recognized across all 50 states and in most countries. If gays and lesbians have more rights, I'd like to know what rights those are? Is there some sort of tax-exempt status I wasn't aware of or the right to free cable? Honestly I'd settle if those were given to me.

Here's a right that's being denied, just one example, in the event of one partner's death, all sorts of arrangements can be made ahead of time, such as wills, and powers of attorney, however without the legal status of Marriage essentially making the other person kin, or their children kin, outside family members may come in and try to snatch up belongings, money, or life insurance that was never intended for them.

The community is outraged because the ads that were run and paid for largely in part by the Mormon Church were deceptive at best and outright lies at worst demonizing a minority who in the state of California, had finally achieved full equality under the law.

Our Constitution and the California state Constitution were both set up to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. That is specifically what the equal protection and due process clauses are for.

Frankly, I'm incensed at the idea that the California Constitution can be amended so easily with a simple majority vote. Some states and the Federal Constitution require a 2 thirds majority of the House and Senate and then ratification by 2 thirds of the people or states, or a Constitutional Convention to convene. What Californians, you and specifically the Churches did was tyrannical denial of rights, and that's simply an un-American value.

To address your question, "Why doesn't the community choose another ceremonial name?" because separate but equal is never equal. Under the law, any rights granted to one group MUST be granted to all others without stipulations.

Daimeon

OMG, where does one begin?

Mary Ann, if I may be so informal, it is not just the gay community that is outraged. At the many protests I've been to since November 4th, both in San Francisco and Los Angeles, there have been many (and I mean roughly 30%) straight attendees - or at least men and women holding hands and No on 8 signs.

We don't blast people for believing in causes if those causes help others, or at the very least, don't harm others. If Scott's cause was to bring back slavery, I think you'd have a problem with that too, no matter how much he believed in it.

Gays are considered a protected group in the California constitution, as are racial minorities and religious groups. Gays do not have more rights than straight people. We have been identified as a protected group because we have historically had fewer rights and have been singled out for discrimination throughout this great country's history, just like other protected groups. Blacks, Catholics, Mormons, etc., have all been singled out in the past and enjoy what you might consider 'special' rights. These fundamental, constitutional rights protect a minority group from the tyranny of the majority.

As for rights that have been stripped away, on May 15 the courts determined that the equal protection clause of the California constitution encompasses marriage, and as such, regardless of the number of people who voted for Prop 22, they did so in error, according to the constitution, and as such, Prop 22 and the law it put on the books were no longer valid, and civil marriage should be equally applied to all couples.

Prop 8 has taken away a right that I had and used in order get married. We had already entered a domestic partnership, but it was not until we were married, in front of our entire family and many of our friends, that it was official. In the eyes of society, we were now a married couple and equal to my brother, sister, and every other married person. Without this label, we were not equal, plain and simple.

My suggestion to you is, perhaps, that we should eliminate marriage entirely as a civil entity, and retroactively declare all civil marriages as civil unions instead. If your church wishes to solemnize your civil union, then have at it, but tell me how you might feel to have your marriage turned into something else?

Actually, it's hard to imagine, I know. If I had tried to imagine what today would feel like, having had a right stripped away from me, I don't think I'd have been able to imagine the feeling and the sense of real loss that I actually do. So, asking you to imagine it may be unfair, unless someone has voted to take away a right that you have enjoyed - but I doubt that's happened to you, as it has NEVER happened before in the history of this country.

Okay - Is anyone else as sick as I with the supporters of H8 claiming the majority has spoken? While technically 52 percent of the voters is a majority, you cannot deny it is very slim majority. The fact that many of these poeple were misled and/or ignorant, only proves the fact that the tide is turning. 8 years ago Prop 22 passed with just over 5 million people voting in favor. This year they made very littel gains, while those opposing prop H8 gained significant support. Their Clear Majority is Clearly dwindling and they are showing thier desperation!

Civil unions don't grant the same or as many rights as legal marriage. How many times do we have to repeat it? If we are not allowed to legally marry, the we are not allowed to enjoy the same rights that you straight people take for granted. You must have heard this over and over again by now, so how on earth has it not managed to sink in yet?

And yet again, how does two dudes getting married "impeded" on your straight marriage? No one has ever satisfactorily answered this question for me.

That anonymous post was me, BTW.

Gays do not have more rights than straight people. For example if you found your spouse from Australia you could bring him to America with no problems. If I found my partner abroad, I would not be able to bring him easily to America like you might would.

Civil Unions and Marriage are not equal.

Look at this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

That are all the rights and benefits you have, but with our partnerships we have nothing in many states in our nation.

Ok I will give it a shot, though I don’t have the time now to get into this to fully I would like some info from this lady in response to here questions, as well as some response to her email:
She Asked:
Why is the gay community so outraged over this?
My Question:
Why is the straight community concerned AT ALL with how we live our lives that do not have any bearing on their lives? And no, don't use schools or religious persecution, read the law none of that could or would happen in CA.
She Asked:
Why is Scott being blasted for supporting a cause he believes in?
My Question:
Why does every gay man or woman have to worry about being "blasted" by straight people for just hugging their loved ones in most of this country?
She asked:
Why do the opponents of 8 think they are right and we are wrong and bigoted?
My Question:
Why do the proponents of 8 think they are right and get tell us how to live our life? (Mary Anne you may not realize but telling us we can’t have the same CIVIL protections that she gets by signing a paper we have to spend thousands of dollars to match, even with current domestic partner laws)
She Said:
If fact, gays have more rights than straight people.
My Question:
Please tell me about these wonderful rights we have that you don’t, if you are referring to Hate laws, they protect everyone who has a belief different from anyone else, if you are referring to employment discrimination protection for the LGBT community, you would the same protection as anyone else under that as well.
She asked:
Why impeded on a ceremony designed for men and women over thousands years ago?
My Response:
WE ARNT FOR THE LAST F**KING TIME THIS IS ABOUT CIVIL MARRIGE, NOT SOME CRAZY GUY WITH INCENSE AND A ROBE TALKING TO SOME PETTY GOD, AND BESIDES THE FACT THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO MARRIGE WAS USED TO OBTAIN PROPERTY, PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE WIFE THAT IS).
She Said:
Proposition 8 was not put on the ballot to take away the rights gay people have.
My Response:
Um, yes that is exactly what Prop 8 did, whether you agreed with the court or not, prop 8 removed the right for gays to marry in CA.

There are roughly 1049 laws related to marriage. When all 1049 laws also relate to civil unions then maybe....

A friend of mine sent me the link to this article a few months ago. It was written by Andrew Sullivan 4 years ago. My own story is very similar to the one he describes, but he is much more eloquent than I could ever be.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,588877,00.html
Mary Ann - if you can read the above, and still feel no empathy for the gay friends that you say you love, then, I simply feel sorry for you.

Mary Ann, assuming that's your real name, we are angry because a right we had was removed by a vote. A RIGHT.

You say you have gay friends. I am getting quite sick of this cop out. Assuming these "friends" exist, I highly doubt they are happy with you. You are no friend to anyone if you support the removal of that person's rights.

You and your fellow right-wingers keep trying to claim that we have rights that you don't. I would like to know what those rights are. You see, I live in a state that does not include me in hate crime laws or employment anti-discrimination policies. Every day that I leave my house I have to fear for my life. You don't have to worry about being fired from your job or killed for being straight.

Civil Unions are separate and therefore inherently unequal. Because they are not considered true marriage, we can still be thrown out of our partners' hospital rooms, "families" can take the things our partners leave us in their wills. We can be denied our partners' pensions and are denied our partners' social security benefits.

Marriage was not designed for a man and wife thousands of years ago, it was designed as a contract between to men with one of the men's sisters, daughters, or nieces as a bargaining chip. Men could, and were often expected, to have more than one wife. They were also expected to keep their wives in their place by any means that he saw fit. All of these things are still true in some places. It is only within the last century that western law declared women equal participants in their marriages. Before then, once married, a woman was considered her husband's property.

You and your fellow right-wingers hide behind phrases like "family values" and "sanctity of marriage."
What about the value of our families?
What about the sanctity of our relationships?
People like you hide behind phrases like "family values" and "sanctity of marriage", all while claiming to have gay friends, to keep from having to acknowledge your own bigotry.

That's right.
YOU. ARE. A. BIGOT.
You claim to have gay friends while hiding behind phrases like "family values" and "sanctity of marriage" to try to deny your bigotry to everyone including yourself.
You want us to remain as something less than you, as if we are less than human.

All we want is to live our lives with the same dignity as you. We want to live with full legal respect for our relationships, just like you. We want to live without having to constantly fear for our lives simply from being what we are, just like you. We want to live without having to fear for our jobs and livelihood for something that has no bearing on job performance, just like you. We are second class citizens in this country, and until that changes we are going to keep fighting for the recognition of our rights.

One day, history will look back on this time with the same shame as it does slavery,segregation, male-only suffrage, and ownership of women by their husbands. You can be one of those people that future generations look at with shame, or you can remembered as one who stood on the side of equality. The choice is yours Mary Ann. We only have the choice of whether to fight or disappear.

We have made the choice to fight.

...and one, more, JH. I think Susan answered this beautifully, too.

"A few weeks ago, before the passing of Prop 8, I bought a dress for my (now 31-year-old) son and his partner's planned California wedding. I was ecstatic -- not because I am so vain -- but because it meant that my son could have a big marriage celebration in front of everyone he loves and everyone who loves him. The big engagement party he and his partner had was 'magical' -- love was in the air and people came from far and wide to surround two people who were so excited about taking their vows in six months. "

And if MaryAnn still doesn't understand the pain she has caused her 'friends' and so very many others who had their marriages besmirched by this hateful Proposition H8
... then I am very, very sorry for her.

MaryAnn,

Marriage is not a ceremony. It is essentially a legal contract between two people. This contract confers numerous rights -- 1138 at the federal and countless others at the state and local levels.

Under the law there is a set pecking order of benefits, rights and responsibilities. If I were injured today, the law clearly identifies my next of kin and establishes who can make medical decisions, who can pay my bills, etc. It also establishes how my property should be distributed should I die.

When one desires to specify a change in that pecking order, because so many rights are involved it is necessary for someone to confirm that true and uninhibited wishes of the parties involved. The state does not perform a marriage but simply witnesses it for the purpose of validating the legal contract. In fact, some states such as Pennsylvania permit self-uniting marriages where there is no official presiding but the couple and their witnesses conduct the marriage.

Essentially, the state serves as official record-keeper saying that for purposes of all current and future (not just what you have today but any new rights that the law creates tomorrow) rights the marriage partner serves as next of kin.

The beauty of the word marriage is that everyone knows what it means. The kid at the video store who allows a couple to have a joint rental card to the doctor in the hospital asking for a medical decision. The law and everyday people know what a marriage is.

So from a legal perspective, why is it necessary to create a second term (civil union) for a legal contract when a perfectly good term already exists (marriage). The only reason necessary is if you wanted one (civil unions) to confer less rights.

That is all we want. The same legal right and recognition under the law.

Where does religion come into play? Well, if you are going to give so many rights to someone who is not "blood kin" you must love and trust them very much. Religions have typically found that love is a good and Godly thing and wanted to honor the expression of God in love. As a result, they got into the concept of celebrating the love found in marriage.

So this raises another question...

From a religious perspective, if marriage is about love and it is obvious that many of the gay couples are deeply in love, why does religion not want to celebrate that love? Truthfully the only reason is that they believe that the love in gay lives is different or lesser than love in straight loves.

The basic religious tenets boil down God is love and all that comes from God is good. So if gays are in love that is good right? Love should be celebrated right? So why the contradiction? While not a legal requirement and I don't need the approval or ceremonies of the church, it is an additional kick in the face to have religious people say "it is good that you are in love but we prefer not to think about your love and pretend it doesn't exist."

I forgot to sign my post. Darn it.

You may like your gay friends and co-workers, but they don't like you. You may call them your "friends", but they call you that pinched, self-righteous little b**ch that won't go away. Really, they're either just being polite or they don't actually know how you feel.

So, yeah, we're not your "friends". Friends don't walk into other friend's homes and spit on their families. Hopefully your supposed circle of gay friends whom you supposedly love will wise up to the fact you think they're less than human and kick you to the curb, toot sweet.

Buh-bye.

Mary Ann,

Did you talk with your close circle of gay friends about your vote?

What were their feelings?

Why is the gay community so outraged over this?

We are outraged because we are being treated as second class citizens.

Some of us are even more outraged because the passage of Prop. 8 will write discrimination within California’s Constitution.

Why do the opponents of 8 think they are right and we are wrong and bigoted?

Mary Ann since definitions of words seem to be so important to you:

big•ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

(True some gays do fall into this category as well – but in regards to Prop. 8 we’re not the bigots here)

Gays have rights. These rights were passed in 2003. If fact, gays have more rights than straight people. What rights are they being denied?

California has Domestic partnerships which are nothing but separate but equal laws such as racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

The right we are being denied is the right to be treated and viewed as EQUALS in the eyes of the government that we pay our taxes too.

Gays can be joined in a ceremony uniting them for life. Why impeded on a ceremony designed for men and women over thousands years ago?

Because we are not talking about a “ceremony designed for men and women” we are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE – you can have any ceremony you want but if you don’t have a LICENSE in the eyes of our government you are not MARRIED!

The definition of marriage has changed many, many times since it conception - so if could stop looking at it through so 1950's lens you would know that:

Here are some facts about the civil marriage in the US:

1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.

1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.

1948 - California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban

1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.

So as you can see the definition of marriage has changed before and it will again because as you can see from these comments we’re not going to give it up we will fight to be treated as EQUALS in eyes of our government.

Regardless of your personal feelings about marriage, regardless of how you feel about gay people in general, it is WRONG to eliminate a person's basic fundamental rights, even if that right has only recently been granted in your state. Shame on you and shame on the voters in California who voted for change with one hand and voted to enshrine discrimination into California's constitution with the other hand.

I would like to know what your gay friends have to say about your statements...

Mary Ann, Allow me to quote Jon Stewart: "Your gay friends hate you."

That is all.

Mary Ann is right.

She's entitled to her belief. And all beliefs are equal, you know.

For example, my belief, based on the teaching of my church, is that people named Mary Ann should not have the right to vote.

Now I have many friends and coworkers named Mary Ann and I've told them that they just have to respect that I disagree with them on this one issue. Just the little thing about voting. But I love them, you know.

And Mary Ann doesn't need the right to vote, she has so many rights anyway. More than non-Mary Anns, really. And it's ever so convenient for her that she doesn't have to rush to polling places or read initiatives or listen to debates. She should thank me.

So I'll be putting Mary Ann's right to vote up for, well, a vote. We'll let people other than those named Mary Ann decide what is best for Mary Ann. And she should just grow up and take it. Majority vote, ya know.

dear mary ann,

you say : "I have gay friends, customers & co-workers. I love my circle of gay friends."

but you voted to deny them equal rights. me-thinks you are way in the dark on how some of your friend actually view you. i fact, if you were my friend, i would drop you in a heart beat.

you say : "Gays have rights. These rights were passed in 2003. If fact, gays have more rights than straight people. What rights are they being denied?"

clearly you are not a tax lawyer or CPA.

you say : "Proposition 8 was not put on the ballot to take away the rights gay people have."

do you even realise what you just voted for? seriously!

you say : "Why doesn't the community think of another ceremonial name to call their civil unions if they don't like the name CIVIL UNIONS."

ummm, "ceremonial name"?! oh that's right. we're just playing house here so we just need to make up a new name for it. got it.

you say : "They gay community needs to mature up- The majority has voted. Move on!!!"

this comment is so offensive i wanted to go all immature on you. however, this is not my website and i will refrain from saying anything disrepectfull.
oh, screw it. i hope you stay stuck on that stupid island! i bet ginger isn't as much of a bigot as you are.

p.s. the professor is gay and so is gilligan and the skipper.

One small point of contention Mary Ann: you HAD gay friends. Now every single one of them probably wants to beat the shit out of you for being a retarded cunt who thinks that bringing civil rights back into the dark ages is a good idea.

Go die in a fire.

For several centuries Black people were denied marriage. They were slaves, property - and property doesn't have rights like marriage. They weren't considered fully human.

Since long before then gay couples have been denied marriage. In many states, we're also denied job security, personal safety and housing. We're not considered sufficiently human enough to deserve them.

That's why gay marriage matters; it's black or white, no shades of grey. Either you think your gay friends are human or you think they're subhuman - and your vote is evidence of what your opinion is.

For several centuries Black people were denied marriage. They were slaves, property - and property doesn't have rights like marriage. They weren't considered sufficiently human enough to deserve them.

Since long before then gay couples have been denied marriage. In many states we're also denied job security, personal safety and (in the case or trans people) access to housing. We're not considered sufficiently human enough to deserve them.

That's why gay marriage matters; it's black or white, no shades of grey. Either you think your gay friends are human or you think they're subhuman - and your vote is evidence of what your opinion is.

Immature, straight person here.

Last week, in four states, voters told the gay community that they are second class citizens, and therefore, not entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other United States Citizen.

Civil Unions?

Three words: SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Several people here have given you a history lesson. Look up "Brown vs. Board of Eduction" for another one.

What the hell happened to the separation of church and state? Is marriage exclusively Christian? No. Jews can get married. Muslims can get married. Atheists can get married.

I am a Christian. The "religious right" does not speak for me. Jesus did not treat anyone like a second class citizen.

This is not a religious issue. This is not a moral issue. This is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

I have gay friends and a gay brother, too. They feel disappointed, sad, betrayed, and PISSED AS HELL.

My brother would like to get married. I have made a new friend in California who just had his marriage voted away. There were "friends" AT HIS WEDDING who turned around and voted it down. They must have thought the same as you: he would understand that their religious beliefs took precedence over their "friendship" with him.

I'll let him have the last word, as he wrote it on another forum:

"...until you have had a GAY wedding and then your entire state votes and takes it away, you do not know how it feels. Rapists and serial killers can marry. I can't. You can call me anything you like, and assume what you want, but you will never, ever know how I feel."

Dear Mary Ann:
I want you to know that I am a heterosexual black woman, once married to a white man.
I also want to tell you about the legacy of 'suspect classes'. Essentially what that means is, people like blacks, gays, Jews...have at one time been on the receiving end of INSTITUTIONALIZED, legal, discrimination.
With all disregard for those person's willingness and ABILITY to participate in all the structures every other citizen agreed to, but were excluded anyway.

It was no harder to raise suspicion for the motives of gay people to marry, than black people to intergrate.
Black sexuality has as many myths and defamation as gay sexuality does.

Only someone who has never had to consider their own allowances, would say that a traditionally suspect class of people has enough or more and at the same time, deny a right so fundamentally supported, that incarcerated murderers and those with many divorces and remarriages behind them can marry once or again.

You do not now, nor ever will know what life as a suspect member of society is like. So your assertion that all there are enough or more rights, is unworthy of someone who also claims to have gay friends.

You DO NOT have gay friends. You may not feel any active hate or homophobia in your heart, but you don't have to do you to commit a serious breach of TRUST.

My white in laws, I"m sure, didn't think they were actively racist, they weren't.
But there was no occasion in their lives to really test that.

Until I needed them during a crisis of illness, and they threw me to the wolves all too easily and quickly, completely betraying everything. And after I'd known them for fifteen years.
The hurt was so profound, I haven't fully recovered yet after over three years of separation from their son.
And they are Catholics who never miss church.

You have NO idea what it's like to be forced literally into the role of a child. For no one to have no more expectations of you than that. Nor to challenge the status quo any more than a child could.
Gay people are expected to take orders, be silent, not form romantic relationships to the point of marriage, have sex, raise children, challenge the authority with which straight people have entitled themselves.
And even then, gay people don't respond to violations to their lives with violence or serious threat.
But with due process of law, judicial review, appeal to compassion and empathy.

And NOW that their joy and happiness in marriage was taken away out of spite, to my mind...YOU have the gall to say they should just move on?!

Easy for you to judge. Easy for you to say.
You can hold the hand of your loved one without threat of being assualted or murdered for doing so.
Even then, gay people's marriages would be void beyond the borders of CA or MA. Whereas YOUR marriage has no borders. No challenge to taking custody and responsibility of your spouse and children.
And were YOU at risk of losing them, your shared property, your children to the whims of a hostile nation, but FOR marriage to protect you...you sure wouldn't move on.

Assume nothing, and let gay people tell YOU what's what, instead of YOU lecturing gay people on what they need or deserve.
They never asked for MORE than you, but deserve, nor should settle for any less.

You wouldn't.
And as Jesus commanded you to treat another as you'd be treated, it's time you understand why that commandment is so important.
If from where the most ethical and moral judgements and actions flow.
And each person of faith, who doesn't want to share the life affirming joys of love, marriage and family with gay people, is cruel indeed and breaks that commandment and uses the Constitution to do so.

The Bible didn't give you YOUR freedoms, as a woman. Not even as Christian. The Constitution did.
The Bible didn't emancipate the slaves, nor destroy Jim Crow. The Constitution did.
And the Bible isn't enforced in our nation, but even then, where that persuasion failed in court. Again, you used the Constitution to deny marriage equality.

THAT is why you cannot be trusted. You are a contradiction in EVERY term. A contradiction of the Bible, Constitution and freedom of citizens who have all the responsibilities of their citizenship and relationships, but less than half of the rights to enable any of it.
Don't EVER question gay people, question why you showed two different faces to your friends.

And were you a real friend, who really love them. You would have had the same face at the ballot box.
You betrayed them as if they NEVER WERE your friends.

So don't claim them. And don't claim a Christianity that betrayed the second commandment of Jesus AND betrayed the tenets of the Constitution.

Mary Ann, I hope you take the time to read all these posts. You tell us to move on. Well, I've been around long enough to know that the moving on is not going to happen. Basically, we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. Sorry, but I sometimes think in movie quips.

It's nice that you think that we have more rights than straights, but those rights are just the kindness of strangers (I know, I know). There are many wonderful hospitals and medical groups in the Twin Cities that have made it their policy to treat same gender couples the same as married couples. That's really wonderful of them, but they can take that away from us anytime they want.

My employer is wonderful. They have allowed me to cover my partner with my health and dental insurance policies. Of course, they can take that from us anytime they want. There is also nothing they can do to keep me from paying taxes on their contribution to my partner's insurance. My pension is actually through the state pension system, so of course my partner would not receive any payments from them upon my death. Fortunately, our children would receive the payments, and they would take care of my partner. Speaking of the children, I am their only legally recognized parent. Although I'm certain that Minnesota now allows both partners to adopt children together, they certainly did not when our now adult children were adopted.

The lack of protection will follow us to our graves. Well not exactly to our graves. We have purchased a niche in our church's columbarium. The church also has the urns for our ashes. However, neither one of us can arrange our cremations and interments. One of the children will have to give the okay for me and a distant cousin for my husband (sorry, I guess you would prefer that I refer to him as my partner despite the fact that we were married in an ELCA church).

We spent a couple thousand of dollars to have legal papers drawn up that we wouldn't have needed if the state recognized the marriage that God recognizes. So Mary Ann (oh I just now got the reference to Gilligan, the skipper, and the professor - very good C-freak), I am tired of taking all this, and I'm mad as hell.

Mary Ann, I suggest that you go and visit all your "gay friends" and tell them exactly how you voted. Please don't telephone them. You need to see their faces, and they need to see yours.