marc and scott's kiss and politics

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 3:08am

I was reading an article about homosexuality and current U.S. Politics and there is a paragraph about Marc and Scott's kiss on the Tonys.
It is an interesting article.
Gay Is The New Black Updated On: 6/16/03 at 03:08 AM

[JakeB]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 5:27am

I think you posted the wrong link! Updated On: 6/16/03 at 05:27 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 5:32am

all fixed! Updated On: 6/16/03 at 05:32 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:12am

Thank you for posting that piece.
As someone who believes we are all equal and that if we love we should be able to marry whomever we want.
I can not believe the outrage in this world.
If I wanted to marry Sally I should be allowed.
I think it is time for things to change.
Marc and Scott should be allowed to get married. They love each other and should have a huge wedding at the ST Regis, just like my sister did.
All we need is love in this world and I do not understand why same sex marriages are not legal.
It is an outrage that hopefully will be changed soon.
I am ready to sign a petition.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:18am

Truthfully I don't understand it. You always here the crap about how our government is set up so that majority rukes, but still protects the minority. I don't feel protected... or equal. I feel like a second class citizen. Should they pass a law that everyone you have never met must approve of your wedding?? That is crap to me. In the 1960s, when it was illegal to marry someone of another race, the courts overturned it, saying that the government can't deny someone the right to marry because of religios beliefs (that if whites and blacks were meant to marry each other, they would have been created on the same continent) as it violates separration of church and state. When that law was overturned, the number of people opposed to interracial marriage was actually MORE than the number of people who today oppose same sex marriage.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:26am

Broadwayguy,
It is time for people to express these feelings and make changes.
I am not gay but I believe gay and lesbians should be able to get married and have the same rights as everyone else.
Good for Marc and Scott. It is time for equality.
And Broadwayguy, NEVER FEEL LIKE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!
You are not! This law will be changed. Updated On: 6/16/03 at 08:26 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:28am

I need to move to Toronto. LOL. As long as Bush and his reicht wing are in control and appointing judges, it isn't the highlight of my lifetime.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:30am

Toronto does not have the great theater we have in NYC.
That would be worse don't you think.
I Love NY Theater.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:31am

Toronto to NYC is a much shorter commute than Texas to NYC!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:54am

BG,
Move to Manhattan! NYC- IS THE GREATEST PLACE TO LIVE.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:56am

ecept for Bloomberg and his craziness. lol.

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 12:06pm

Yeah, but who can afford Manhattan!? lol I know I can't right now. Oh well, at least I live in one of NYC's 5 boroughs...it's a step in the right direction.

I am not gay/lesbian either, but I agree that people should be allowed to marry if they are in love and want to be legally considered man and wife (or man & man/ wife & wife)....whatever! I know gay/lesbian couples that have lasted longer than most marriages, and yet they can not be considered married.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 12:35pm

Broadwayguy,

I think that marriage between two loving people should always be supported and encouraged by society, and the government. My partner and I have been together for over three years and would be married if we could. We've registered our partnership with the State of California, which is all we can legally do.

That change will never happen as long as the conservative religious people have so much power in this country. Heck, the Supreme Court has to decide whether archaic sodomy laws should be struck down. They should decide that within the next couple of weeks. Any bets as to what they do?

Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which says that the federal government will not recognize marriage between same-sex partners. In California, probably the most socially liberal state, Proposition 22 (Pete Knight's referendum blocking gay marriage) passed 60/40.

So, I think (and hope) that the time is coming. But it's not here yet.

Sorry this was so long, but I feel pretty strongly about this. :)

Deanna

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 3:17pm

You aren't the only one.

And I don't get 'DOMA'. What the fU(k are they trying to defend? The 'sanctity' of marriage?? We live in a counrty with a divorce rate of over 50%. I think they breeders have already destroyed it. They say marriage is only for producing children (that's a good one -- not everyonewants them) Should they require you to be tested for fertitlity and if you are infertile, you can't marry??

I get so pissed everytime I hear "land of the free and home of the brave" and "created equal" "endowed with certain inalieble rights". This country has NEVER stood for equality for all citizens. The minority has always ben attacked and it has always been justified with 'God' as a reason and making it 'Ok'.

same sex marriage will never be made equal by an election. Whay? Because gay couples are in the minority and (most) breeders don't care about it becasue it doesn't affect them if we can't. But somehow it DOES if we can??? TRhe only way it will be legalized is through a court ruling, but you can bet homophobes, which is the majority of society currently) will fight tooth and nail. Congress is trying to push a constitutional AMENDMENT that would forever ban same sex marriage and make it illegal for the courts to hear cases challenging it. how can you pass something with a clause that it can't be challenged??

gay people are the lastminority that it is seen as truky OK to demonize.

yes, I don't like the way my government is run. I pay the same taxes as anyone I meet on the street, so I should have the same rights as the,

And NO, civil unions in Vermont might be OK now, but we proved decades ago that seperate but equal(read -- less) is not tolerable.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 3:41pm

I should have said that registering our partnership with the state doesn't give us any special rights. The Assembly has actually passed a law that gives more rights (survivorship, joint tax returns in California, etc), but that doesn't confer any special federal rights.

And be nice to the "breeders!" My partner and I are trying to have a baby -- I suppose that makes us breeders? :)

That aside, you're 100% on the money with your comments.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 3:50pm

hey, I want kids too. LOl.

[Cadriel]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 4:18pm

Honestly, I think that as long as civil authorities allow for divorce, they have no justification to discriminate against any couples who want to be legally married. Legal marriage is a social status that acknowledges, essentially, that two people are cohabitating and, at least in theory, acting as monogamous partners. That's why we have statutes like "common law marriage" to define that straight couples who've been living together for X number of years and haven't gotten hitched are, functionally, married. Considering the legal separation of church and state, there is no conceivable reason why this recognition must be restricted to that of a man and a woman, and I would be in favor of removing that restriction.

However, I also think that religious organizations' views ought to be respected in this matter - that is, no faith should ever be pressured to recognize same-sex unions as religious marriages. Many religions have tradition that is ages old, and that ought not to change because of societal pressure. I simply believe that the religious aspects of marriage shouldn't be reflected in the laws of the United States (otherwise, as a Catholic, I would be calling for a unilateral ban on divorce). This is an essential bit of give-and-take: religions should get out of peoples' beds, but they should not be expected to change their traditional views because of this. I think that this would be a fair way to go about the issue. Of course, I also doubt that it'll ever come to pass.

-Wayne

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 4:22pm

Technically, there are three types of marriage currently

-- relious/ceremonial marriage
-- legal marriage
-- common law marriage.

The battle is for LEGAL marriage. The same rights and the smae name. frankly, i don't care if a particular religion recognizes it or not. I want the legal rights and protections. Churches should have no say in the legal marriage. hello separation of church and state. If they don't want me in their religion, that's fine by me. Updated On: 6/16/03 at 04:22 PM

[Cadriel]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 4:27pm

broadwayguy2:

I read you, loud and clear, and agree that it's ludicrous for the state to stand in your or anyone else's way.

-Wayne

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 5:02pm

I think Broadwayguy said it in his last post. We're not asking for special rights, just EQUAL rights.

I agree that some religions have traditions that are quite old. Tradition is, sometimes, a good thing. Sometimes traditions need to be updated for new times. However, I could care whether the Southern Baptists, or the Catholics (I was raised Catholic) recognize my marriage in their church. Some churches already do recognize religious marriages -- MCC, and some reform Jewish communities do recognize it. The issue isn't "marriage in the eyes of G-d", it's legal marriage with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it.

I do think that it will happen, but it's going to take some more time.

Deanna Updated On: 6/16/03 at 05:02 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/16/03 at 8:44pm

It will happen Broadwayguy and D,
We need to make it happen.
Corine Cohen
A BREEDER WHO BELIEVES EVERYONE IS EQUAL.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 6/17/03 at 6:56pm

Canada is now going to allow same-sex marriage. Good for them! They follow two other countries. It's high time that the US -- the home of the free, where all men are created equal, step up and practice what we preach.

From the New York Times:

Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriages
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 5:19 p.m. ET

TORONTO (AP) -- Canada will change its law to allow homosexual marriage, joining Belgium and The Netherlands as the only countries where same-sex couples can legally wed, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced Tuesday.

Chretien said the new law would be drafted within weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for review, then put to a Parliament vote. His Liberal Party has a commanding majority in the legislature, though the issue has caused division in the Liberal caucus.

The announcement means the government decided against appealing recent court rulings that declared the nation's definition of marriage as unconstitutional because it specified the union of a man and woman.

An Ontario appeals court last week declared that wording invalid, changing it to a union between two people.

``There is an evolution of society,'' Chretien said in making the announcement after a Cabinet meeting. He said the law would allow religions the right to decide what marriages should be sanctified.

An Anglican diocese in Vancouver has approved a blessing for same-sex unions, which it says is separate from marriage. The blessing ceremony, performed once so far, caused a split in the diocese with some churches dissociating themselves.

Opinion polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favor legalizing same-sex marriages. After the Ontario appeals court ruling and similar previous ones by courts in British Columbia and Quebec, the government was under pressure to change the law or file appeals that would have left the issue unsettled.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Tuesday it was time for change.

``We have decided not to appeal those rulings ... and proceeded with draft legislation that will be ready shortly ,'' he said. The new law would redefine marriage as called for by the courts while protecting religious freedoms, according to Cauchon.

``We're talking about essential freedoms here,'' he said.

Svend Robinson, a Parliament member for the leftist New Democratic Party who has pushed for same-sex marriages in Canada, praised Chretien's government for showing leadership. He rejected opposition by conservative political groups, who argue that changing the definition of marriage uproots a fundamental tenet of Canadian society.

Dozens of homosexual couples have obtained marriage licenses in the week since the court ruling, with at least one wedding taking place.

In the United States, homosexual marriage lacks full legal recognition in all 50 states. Vermont recognizes civil unions that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage but are separate from legal marriage.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/17/03 at 7:04pm

Glad to hear it.
If only President Bush read these boards! It is time for a change.
We are the land of the free. We need to allow same sex marriages.
Corine

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/17/03 at 7:05pm

If president Bush leans anyfurther to the right, he'll be upside down.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 6/17/03 at 7:09pm

ROFL, Broadwayguy. That's way too funny. Compassionate conservative my tushie! He's further to the right than Reagan was. Updated On: 6/17/03 at 07:09 PM