1. It's fucked up to put it bluntly. That our government (representation of people) DOES not represent all of it's people. It's fucked up that in 2007 not all men are created equal. It's even more fucked up that we all talk in circles and there are still kids out there ready to kill themselves because they don't fit in at school (just as one shining example) Yea, I'm pissed off and my anger will be heard.

It's fucked up that if you have enough money you can buy your way out of anything. Whoever has the money has the power.

Posted at 10:35AM on Aug 24th 2007 by Andrew

2. qjersey said: "While great "news," if anything, it will justify the "separate" but "equal" status of civil unions....great argument for them, but not same sex marriage"

I tend to disagree. I think evidence of historical same-sex legal relationships blows a big hole in the argument by conservatives in this country that legally recognized marital relationships have always been religiously sanctioned. Conservatives argue that one man + one woman is always how it has been. I think this book might prove otherwise.

What's more, the conservative argument seems to be that all marriages (i.e., one man + one woman) are based on some holy recognition of love between two people. That certainly doesn't account for centuries of politically arranged marriages.

Posted at 12:30PM on Aug 24th 2007 by Keith

3. I thought this was funny and sort of 'relevant'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8




PS. I've calmed down some since last post due to some needed comedy by Wanda Sykes - Sick & Tired.

Posted at 12:53PM on Aug 24th 2007 by Andrew

4. Andrew - thanks for posting Wanda's hysterical rant! And don't calm down too much. This is BULLSHIT!!!!

Posted at 2:49PM on Aug 24th 2007 by Joe Lagana

5. What Gay Marriage all boils down to is the the establishment of a legal relationship between people. When it became lawful for gay to adopt and then co-adopt, it resulted in everybody having a legal relationship EXCEPT the parents. "Co brothering" established a legal relationship that was appropriate for the time. However, with all the rights and obligations that are entwined in LEGAL marriages, Gay Marriage is the only way to go.

Posted at 3:42PM on Aug 24th 2007 by chandler in hollywood

6. While great "news," if anything, it will justify the "separate" but "equal" status of civil unions....great argument for them, but not same sex marriage

Posted at 4:40PM on Aug 24th 2007 by qjersey

7. I sent Mr. Rothstein's previous article to HRC. I also had my friends do the same. It's o.k. to be angry. It's o.k. to voice those opinions. If you don't do it now, you may never get a chance, for a very long time. WAKE UP.

@Mr. Rothstein

I wish everyone could have taken that article more to heart. Or that more people could have read it. It was brilliant. Your right about everyone dancing and giving dinners. Most people don't give a damn. They continue on talking about their trivial bs. Everything seems fine because being homosexual is "in". Nothing has been solidified yet. I don't want to move to another country just to marry my girlfriend. This is my home.

Posted at 9:48PM on Aug 24th 2007 by Minako Jitsuyama

8. Thanks for posting this.

This research, from what you suggest, does problematize the naturalness of heterosexual marriage as being the *only* form of valid union, but we have to be cautious in reading these 'affrerement' relationships as 'gay' in the contemporary sense. Rather it might be more useful to posit these unions are evidence of a diversity argument. Does this mean I should prefer French freres rather American fries? [Sorry best I could think up!] Greetings from Dublin, Ireland.

Posted at 1:51PM on Aug 25th 2007 by Sean Reynolds

9. While it seems that history has been rewritten time and time again, the problem still exists -- recognizing gay marriages today NOT in the 16th century. Why is it OK for insurance to pay the widow the benefit but not OK to pay the partner? THAT partner still took care of the deceased (only one example at a time) but doesn't get the benefits? What about medical insurance? What if the other partner can't work and needs medical insurance? Whatever the "union" they ALL need to be recognized for purposes such as the above listed.

Posted at 10:40AM on Aug 26th 2007 by Anne

10. I think rewriting history for propaganda, military, religious and political purpose is still very alive today, this article for example. It is no secret that American history has been twisted out of shape all too many times to suit political and social goals. How is this article the same as these two sentences. If you believe something, it is correct. If not, it is twisting the truth. You be the judge.

Posted at 10:41AM on Aug 26th 2007 by Mike Graves

11. Everyone is missing the point. If all men are created equal, our government never had the right to give married people more legal benefits than single people; tax, insurance or otherwise. This is a point that liberals and conservatives both miss. What is it about being married that makes someone who was single the day before more worthy of tax breaks or whatever? It's unconstitutional. Make everyone's benefits and tax percentages the same, and let the government stay out of who marries who. George Washington was no less married to Martha Washington before there were state laws that called them so! Marriage is a spiritual union, not the legal contract our government has made it. Educate yourselves and think for yourself. Letting the government get as big as it has trying to get freebies is exactly how stuff like this happens.

Posted at 11:19AM on Aug 26th 2007 by Logan Polley

12. that was the most repulsive video ive ever seen in my life. Gay=Wrong. Stay away from my ass

Posted at 11:20AM on Aug 26th 2007 by Chris

13. Chris: Understood! But you clearly have a very interesting mouth.

Posted at 11:21AM on Aug 26th 2007 by Richard

14. Married couples and single people, should, in my perspective, deserve different taxes. Couples need the extra money for the children, as, because of illegal child labor, children are not allowed to work. And to the person who stated, "It's fucked up that if you have enough money you can buy your way out of anything. Whoever has the money has the power." This is America, capitalism benefits the wealthy and does not help the poor, which is up to government intervention to decide. If you want equality, move to a Communist country. At least everything is equal there.

Posted at 1:29PM on Aug 26th 2007 by Robert

15. Traditional marriage??? no such thing. Marriage has existed in many different forms in many different cultures and time periods. Pedastry was a form of marriage and was practiced, along with regular same sex marriage, by the greeks, romans, and even the ancient samurai. Marriage is about the union of two people in a legaly binding sense. you don't need a priest to perform a marriage, any justice of the peace can do that. And every relgiion has marriage ceremonies. Many religions are accepting of same sex unions. So if we have freedom of religion, how can we use the religious slant to fight AGAINST gay marriage? simple...WE CAN'T. And without the religious argument, there IS no argument. Homosexuality and same sex marriage have existed on this earth long before there were christians or even jews. We will get it back...the sooner the better.

Posted at 1:40PM on Aug 26th 2007 by Ben

16. It sucks how men who accept gay people now are considered gay as well. The US is trying to say they're more understanding, but if anything they're making matters worse! Why does it matter who has sex with who, who marries who or who wants to love who or not love at all!? It is no one else's problem.
I don't give a shit who someone else marries, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, own feelings and own outlook on life. This whole "controversy" just shows that people get a kick out of telling others what to do. -- Women aren't allowed to work, Blacks aren't allowed to go to white schools, trans-sexuals are no-sexuals, this whole thing is stupid! If all these other things were able to be resolved, why is this "issue" any different. I just think it shouldn't be a damn issue to begin with! Who gives a crap? Focus on your own life, your own problems.

Posted at 4:40PM on Aug 26th 2007 by ShortLilRope

17. I don't have a big issue with gay marriage (and for the record, I'm a happily married straight woman). I think if two people love each other and want to be life partners, it doesn't matter if they are opposite sex, both men, both women, whatever. Most Churches refuse to perform or acknowledge gay marriages because these unions go against "Scripture"--but you don't need a Church ceremony to get married. Besides, "Scripture" was written and compiled hundreds of years after the fact by a group of guys who were trying to convince the rest of the world to believe in God. It's compelling, but it's not necessarily "TRUTH." When the Bible as most Christians know it was compiled, a lot of books that could have been included were left out, simply because they weren't "important" enough or perhaps contained points of view that the compilers didn't agree with. Talk about rewriting history...
The "marriage=tax break" thing kinda confuses me. One theory is that children cost money and the tax break is to help families out financially. However, there are plenty of childless married couples out there that don't necessarily need a tax break (although I'm sure they appreciate it!); as well as plenty of unwed teen mothers that might need a tax break but don't qualify simply because they're not married. While I don't think kids should be having kids, I also feel bad for these girls that don't have any way of supporting their babies because they don't have jobs, are still in high school, baby's daddy is also still in high school and has no job, etc. Further proof that sometimes life is rough or "unfair."

Posted at 4:40PM on Aug 26th 2007 by Emily

18. Let's be honest, we are not a communist country. All people, whether married or single, or gay or heterosexual, are not going to get the same damn tax break. It would be nice if things worked that way, but they just don't. The government controls everything we do, and will continue to do so, forever. Let's start by acknowledging the fact that we get married according to laws that have been put into place through GOVERNMENT legislation, and TELL us that a particular contract designates us as married/divorced. Marriage is only a concept; there are people who live together and take care of each other until death does them part and yet they never have the ceremony or sign that piece of paper that declares how much money they get at the end of each year. If the government can tell you that marrying someone who is the same sex as you is lawful/unlawful, then they're telling you who the hell you can/can't sleep with, furthermore, who you can love. It doesn't affect liberals or conservatives at all if men are marrying men or women are falling in love with women. It is all simply a matter of control. I mean, who really cares except for those people who are in those relationships? Furthermore, it is inevitable that the re-writing of history will go on indefinitely. It has been happening for ages and if anyone's learned anything throughout college/uni, it's that being gay or homosexual isn't IN. I'm sorry, but I disagree with whoever said that completely. It's been going on for AGES and ages, and many of those who partook in it during the roman/greek times were those of HIGH stature, philosophers and kings and queens for fuck's sake. It has nothing to do with fashion, it's a life choice, and it's degrading that people think such an important decision has to do with fashion and "what's in". I'd have to say that's just an ignorant statement made by someone who's so insecure about their own sexuality. How the hell does it affect you if someone's gay? You live your life, they live theirs. I pity those people who can't stand to see PDAs of same-sex couples, it's just a sad reminder that in order to feel better about ourselves we have to put something we're unfamiliar with down. Is it more accepted in western society? [one example] YES, perhaps it is. But this is a better way of expressing that it has become more overtly practiced, the same way DIVORCE has. Women and men are able to get out of marriages that have made their lives hell because it has become more accepted, the same way homosexuality is accepted more than it was sometime ago. That doesn't mean people were happier in their married lives, it just means they tolerated more bullshit. And at the day, we are all well aware that the goverment doesn't give a crap about how we're doing in our personal lives, so why don't they all just fuck off? People have been practicing homosexuality for ages, and they're finally feeling comfy enough to come out and live their lives as any heterosexual person would. It's not like men are running around forcing themselves on men, or women on women. We're human beings, and if you don't think homosexuality should be "allowed', because you're afraid someone's going to get on your ass, then you're just flattering yourself. OH, and you also have no idea what human rights are.

Posted at 6:27PM on Aug 26th 2007 by lolita

19. PURE HOGWASH!!!! Just a real bad attempt to re-write history. Anything to "prove" that you're "ok", it's "ok". Gay is just normal and has been "totally accepted" for eons. NO, IT HASN'T. It may have been arounnd, but 99% of the time has been considered unacceptable. As far as history, yes, homosexuality goes as far back as recorded history. Remember Sodom and Gomorrha? God hasn't. And that was just a warning shot!

Posted at 6:21AM on Aug 27th 2007 by Rainmangdg57

20. yuo r gros btw

Posted at 6:25AM on Aug 27th 2007 by desgast