Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Ellen Pushes McCain on Same Sex Marriage: "You're No Different Than I Am; Our Love Is the Same"
May 22, 2008 9:32 AM
In the episode of the Ellen DeGeneres Show taped yesterday, to air today, the lesbian talk show host pushes her guest - presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz -- on his opposition to same sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court cleared the way for last week.
DeGeneres announced her intention to marry her partner, actress Portia de Rossi, this Summer, which she brought up, calling the subject "the elephant in the room."
"I'm obviously excited and to me this is only fair and only natural," DeGeneres said.
McCain said he thought "people should be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas, decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue."
"Blacks and women did not have the right to vote," DeGeneres responded. "I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870. And it just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people, all of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same. To me -- to me, what it feels like -- just, you know, I will speak for myself -- it feels -- when someone says, 'You can have a contract, and you'll still have insurance, and you'll get all that,' it sounds to me like saying, 'Well, you can sit there; you just can't sit there.' That's what it sounds like to me. It feels like -- it doesn't feel inclusive...It feels -- it feels isolated. It feels like we are not -- you know, we aren't owed the same things and the same wording."
Said McCain, softly, "Well, I've heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness."
"Thank you," responded DeGeneres. "So you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?"
McCain laughed." Touché," he said.
"Well, my hope is someday it won't be called a contract; it will be called marriage," DeGeneres responded.
You know to me the only sensible solution to this mess is to just break a marriage down into two parts religious and civil. Everyone goes to the government, and then can commit to the civil portion which would be the same as the marriage laws now, and would deal with insurance, spousal privilege, divorce etc... After that anyone can perform any religious ceremony they can talk a priest into for the spiritual marriage. If you belong to a religion which will not do that and marry you tough luck, but you won't be punished for sexual orientation under civil law. The reason that people do not want this is they feel that there particular church will lose membership unless they open up to this. I just really feel it is time to seperate the church and the state on this matter once and for all.
Post by NothingButFlowers on May 22, 2008 13:12:01 GMT -5
I just don't understand how someone can say with a straight face, "Well, I think you should be able to have a legal contract, but I don't think you should be able to get married." If you really, truly believe that two people should be able to enter into a loving relationship and make that relationship legal, as well, then you believe they should be able to get married. What purposes could not calling it marriage possibly serve? Do they really believe "marriage" is this special word that's only meant for males and females? The only reason to call it something different is to continue to label people as something different (and not quite acceptable). That's so freakin' ridiculous!
Post by sparklybecca on May 22, 2008 13:16:35 GMT -5
"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue."
for some reason, that excuse really just grates at me. Its like a bunch of writers sat around deciding on a sentence that he should say whenever something like this comes up.
You know to me the only sensible solution to this mess is to just break a marriage down into two parts religious and civil. Everyone goes to the government, and then can commit to the civil portion which would be the same as the marriage laws now, and would deal with insurance, spousal privilege, divorce etc... After that anyone can perform any religious ceremony they can talk a priest into for the spiritual marriage. If you belong to a religion which will not do that and marry you tough luck, but you won't be punished for sexual orientation under civil law. The reason that people do not want this is they feel that there particular church will lose membership unless they open up to this. I just really feel it is time to seperate the church and the state on this matter once and for all.
jess - i completely agree. eliminate "marriage" from the government.
If you want to be "married" then go to a church. If you want to be in a legal "civil union" then go to the courthouse.
gay marriage has been legal here for years. last i checked, the sky was not falling. and my gf is on my insurance. marriage (with respect to those that cherish the idea) is not what it used to be. it just doesn't hold the same universal level of importance...
Last Edit: May 22, 2008 13:27:04 GMT -5 by idio - Back to Top
^^^question - if anyone knows - because I am not sure - but if you get married in Italy - don't you do the church wedding and also have to do a government thing?
or is that just so that the Catholic church recognizes the marriage?
Last Edit: May 22, 2008 14:35:14 GMT -5 by Meg - Back to Top
I think the whole gay marriage issue is just another example of the ever-blurring boundary between church and state. The way I see it, if a certain religion doesn't want to marry two gay people because it goes against their morals or scripture, I can understand that. I can't say I approve of their discrimination, but I can respect their decision not to do so. However, I see no reason why the government should mandate that homosexuals cannot marry. And the whole 'sanctity of marriage' argument is moot in a day and age when more than half of marriages end in divorce in this country. Are there any significant differences between a civil union and a marriage, anyway? Why bother with having different names for what's essentially the same thing? Methinks they just don't want gay people to be part of their whole 'sacred institution'. It reminds me of the whole "separate but equal" policy during segregation.
Last Edit: May 26, 2008 0:19:51 GMT -5 by jack324 - Back to Top
CCRGMac
Showerless Shakedown Vendor Smire Felsgood, Attorney at Law
My problem is that I know of so many straight couples who don't respect the sanctity of their marriages. Why should someone else assume that allowing gay marriage would denigrate the institution further?
I so agree that marriage needs to be separated from religion, but I have a real problem with calling everything civil unions and then if you want a marriage, then you involve the church. Because the word "marriage" is still the one that everyone wants to be associated with.
And frankly, I want to use the conventional terms. When I join forever with another person, I want it to be a marriage. And I think that everyone else should have the right to the word "marriage," not just religious people.
To me, it's like religion in schools. I am extremely opposed to religion being taught in public schools - extremely. But I am not opposed to religious schools. If you want your religion and your school combined, you can do so. Both are called "school." It's not "school" and "formal learning." So why should there be two different terms for marriage?
Just as now, a straight couple can decide to be married by a justice of the peace or a religious figure, but it's still called a marriage. I think that it should be the same way. Doesn't matter how you're joined, it should all be called the same thing.
And the whole 'sanctity of marriage' argument is moot in a day and age when more than half of marriages end in divorce in this country. Are there any significant differences between a civil union and a marriage, anyway?
As someone who found marriage to only be an extra piece of paper and a tax break but has now been married four years and feels otherwise...
Marriage is a far different thing from a civil union. My husband and I were together for nine years before we married. We didn't do it for religious reasons, we did it for spiritual reasons and because we wanted to be united in every possible way, as close and as permanent as possible. I think the desire for this runs with many people and they should all have the right. People can marry for stupid reasons and stupid people can marry, but two people terribly and intimately in love who want to be joined under whatever is important to them cannot because they are the same gender? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Ellen, and any other homosexual who desires to marry isn't doing it for a tax break, or for the party. They may be doing it for religious reasons, spiritual reasons, sentimental reasons, private reasons. Just as my husband and I got the itch to be married and not just together, they should have the option as well. I may sound obnoxious as heck, but I didn't see the beauty and sanctity of actual MARRIAGE until I was married at least a year. Maybe half the marriages end in divorce because people don't believe in it, not because what it stands for is dead.
Post by bamadancer on May 26, 2008 10:47:06 GMT -5
I had a friend tell me yesterday that "Gay people shouldn't have civil rights, because if they did, then every time the church said, 'Homosexuality is wrong' it would be a hate crime and church people would get arrested."
^^Personally, I wouldn't have held my tongue. That's a ridiculous and ignorant thing to say.
I agree with dcbee about marriage not having to be religious though. Everything is on a spectrum... just because you aren't a religious person doesn't mean that all you want is a civil union to simplify your insurance and taxes. Sure, I understand the idea of getting government out of marriage- but to say that you should have to go to a church to have anything other than a civil union seems to make getting married too black and white. There should be room for you to make it what you want it. I agree with the conservatives who say its one of humanity's most important institutions... and I think there is room for equality and liberty in it. The idea of marriage will be that much more special to me when ALL my friends in loving, committed relationships can take part in it.
^Well it wouldn't have to be church, you could go hold a small private ceremony in the woods, and let your friends make you a marriage license. The point would if the government was out of marriage then you would have the freedom to get married however you want. No one religion or belief structure holds the final word on marriage.
Eh, I didn't want to say anything back to her honestly because she knows how I feel, and she's a pretty good friend of mine. We try to stay respectful of each other even though we have VERY conflicting opinions...plus I was in the minority at that point. It just blows my mind. When I heard "I don't think gay people should have civil rights..." I think I lost a few braincells.
