Same-Sex America

We watched a heart-wrenching documentary last night about same-sex couples and their fight for civil liberties in Massachusetts. I was impressed with the filmmaker and how well he illustrated the inequalities between same-sex and heterosexual couples. What really got to us was that if a same sex couple wants to adopt a child, both names cannot be on the adoption certificate. This means that if the adopting parent dies, that child will be put in foster care rather than remain in the care of the living parent. Also, same-sex couples are not eligible for any of the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. This indicates a clear bias against same-sex couples, and a definite violation of their civil liberties. There is no way around it, and nothing is going to convince me otherwise. As for the infidelity argument, one of the couples begging for their right to get married were together for 49 years. The others featured in the documentary had all been together for 10 years or more. It broke my heart to watch my fellow Americans fighting so hard for rights that many of us take for granted, and failing again and again.


21 Responses to “Same-Sex America”

  1. 1 The Zombieslayer
    September 21, 2005 at 6:01 am

    This comes under privacy. While I tend not to get involved in “gonadal politics,” whomever someone marries is none of the government’s business.

  2. 2 Liquidplastic
    September 21, 2005 at 9:15 am

    PC we live in such a primitive society — and I agree with Zombie.

  3. 3 NSC 68
    September 21, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    PC, I am with you on this one. Makes no sense.

    If church and state are separate, then same-sex couples should be married by the state in civil and legal ceremonies.

    If the chuch will not let them marry spiritually, that is fine, and that is the right of the Church to stick to its rules. As I am sure you agree, I see no need to make the church change, since I am not a member of any church or religion. They are free to feel whatever they like about same-sex marriage.

    Their feelings, however, should not allow the state to restrict civil marrigages. It is really stupid.

  4. 4 United We Lay
    September 21, 2005 at 2:08 pm

    But whom one is not allowed to marry IS the government’s business as it is a civil rights issue. You can’t help being born gay just as you can’t help being born black.

    If you want to talk about state’s rights, let’s allow the states to decided whether blacks and women can vote, or how much money your family has to make before you an attend oublic school. In fact, let’s give all of the power to the states and forget that the federal level was instated o INSURE CIVIL RIGHTS.

  5. 5 United We Lay
    September 21, 2005 at 2:30 pm


    We have actually had a discussion about my views on the same sex marriage thing back in June – before you required me to take a blog name. While I answered all your questions, you never responded to mine – except to ask more questions. I believe this is an area where we will need to agree to disagree.

    As far as a describing a society that has run amok – Here’s a few examples.

    A society where:

    …an extremely high number of children are living in families with no steady, responsible adult caregivers who role model the type of behavior that makes a person a contributing member of society. Or living with one exhausted parent who doesn’t have the time or the energy to pay attention to what’s going on with the kids. Or children not living in families at all, but are being bounced around the system.

    …casual sex is so widespread that children as young as 11 & 12 are getting pregnant and STDs because even though they have been taught prevention methods, they’ve never learned to say no.

    …people don’t know their neighbors, people will step on each other to get what they want, integrity is found in fewer and fewer people.

    …people are afraid to help each other because there may be some kind of liability and they could get sued.

    …teachers can’t teach because they have to learn to control the classroom behavior of kids whose parents send them to school to be babysat while they work.

    …schools need to subject children to way too much testing to make sure that they are learning – because of the teachers and districts that are apathetic and weren’t really doing their jobs.

    …government is asked (required?)to do things that should be handled by families, churches, neigborhoods, friends, and volunteer organizations.

    That’s all I have time for now.

  6. 6 United We Lay
    September 21, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    What questions about same sex marriage did I not answer? Sometimes, it is appropriate to answer a question with a question. It’s a Socratic philosophy method that allows people to furthe explore WHY they think what they thing rather than whether it’s righ or wrong.

    What are the behaviors you feel makes a person not a contributing member of society?
    Who is supposed to teach children to say no to sex?
    What is casual sex, and why is it wrong?
    What does an apathetic teacher look like to you?
    What should be handled by the community rather than the government?

  7. 7 Clear headed
    September 21, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    I’d rather not rehash the whole same sex marriage thing with you. I know where you stand and I don’t agree. Like I’ve said, we’ve been there before.

    But I’ll be happy to answer the other questions.

    “What are the behaviors you feel makes a person not a contributing member of society?”

    Not working to meet financial obligations. Not taking responsibility for his/her choices (financial, personal). Making excuses for not doing either. Having no sense of self-sacrifice at all – whether it be for family, friends, community or anything else.

    “Who is supposed to teach children to say no to sex?” All adults should be teaching children to say no to sex. Sex is not for children – it is for adults.

    “What is casual sex, and why is it wrong?” Sex outside serious and committed adult relationships is casual. Not enough attention is given to the emotional issues (problems) that are created in casual sexual relationships. Then, of course, we have STDs and pregnancy which lead to spreading health issues and children living in poverty.

    What does an apathetic teacher look like to you? An apathetic teacher is one who does what they are required to do and doesn’t care if the message reaches the student. I know you are not one of those, but they are out there.

    “What should be handled by the community rather than the government?” A good portion of the assistance to the needy, Elder/child care, – families and communities should take care of their own first. Government assistance should be a LAST resort.

  8. 8 United We Lay
    September 21, 2005 at 3:38 pm

    Thank you for answering. I disagree with you on casual sex. There are ways to prevent pregnancy and STD’s, and people should be able to do what they want, however, they should also be financially responsible for the treatment of STD’s or all that goes with pregnancy. I think the emotional side is their business alone. As far as teaching kids to say no to sex, it is the parent’s responsibility. All other adults should say, “Talk to your parents.” or “Wait until you’re at least 18.”

  9. 9 Clear headed
    September 21, 2005 at 3:56 pm

    Should they be responsible only for THEIR treatment of STDs or anyone they may have infected as well. The casual sex epidemic is one of the causes of poverty.

    I am one parent. My husband is the other parent. That makes 2 of us. If we are the only ones who tell our children to say no to sex, then who do you think they will listen to? The thousands of adults who say go for it? Or the hundreds of adults who say talk to your parents (but if you don’t like what THEY say, we can tell you how to “protect” yourself)? I think ALL adults have the moral obligation to tell CHILDREN that sex is for ADULTS ONLY.

  10. 10 Jeff
    September 21, 2005 at 9:15 pm

    Holy shit do I wish I had the time to jump into this one!!

    I’ll tell you this though…
    NSC would be whipped into a serious frenzy of extreme pleasure and contentment at the language I would have to employ in order to properly address this one. The thoughts that are flooding my head at the moment would be enough to make even the blackest skinned person flush fire engine red with amusement were they to be actually spoken aloud or even typed for that matter. If only I had the time. Problem is I couldn’t do it without typing many pages and I just haven’t got the time for that today.

    I’ll also say that for once My Dearest Polanco and I are in complete agreement. They should be allowed to get married. None of my, or anyone else’s fucking business.

    Damn I hate that I have to go.
    Until later…

  11. 11 United We Lay
    September 22, 2005 at 2:43 am

    If you’re stupid enough to get yourself infected, you’re responsible for yourself. There IS such a thing as personal responsibility. If you can’t get your kids to listen to you, that’s your problem. It’s your responsibility to teach them how to handle the things the world presents them with. Again, this comes to personal responsibility and choice. I make my own choices. You shouldn’t be allowed to limit them because of your beliefs. If you don’t want your kid to make the choices I make, teach them to make different choices. But don’t dare limit my choices because of you personal opinions.

  12. 12 The Zombieslayer
    September 22, 2005 at 2:51 am

    PC – That’s kind of what I mean. it’s nobody’s business. So there shouldn’t be a law saying who you can and cannot marry, unless the person is underage.

  13. 13 greatwhitebear
    September 22, 2005 at 3:38 am

    Ever notice the same people who bitch and scream if schools attempt to discpline their children (thats the parents responsibility), suddenly want the schools to be the moral arbiters of sexual ettiquite because they don’t have the balls to teach their kids themselves?

  14. 14 Clear headed
    September 22, 2005 at 10:46 am

    “If you can’t get your kids to listen to you, that’s your problem”
    Spoken truly like a person who has no children.

    I was not suggesting that anyone needs to tell other people’s children how to make decisions. Adults should be telling all children that sex is for adults only. Why is that such a problem? We tell them that alcohol is for adults, owning property is for adults, living on your own is for adults, they can’t go to the doctor, drive a car without parental permission, yet we don’t tell them that sex is for adults. Go figure.

  15. 15 Clear headed
    September 22, 2005 at 10:54 am

    I hope you’re not referring to my post, because that isn’t even implied there.

    On school discipline: schools should have the right to discipline all children. Bring back the paddle, I say!

    On sex ed: Go ahead and teach the biology of sex. Actually, I believe it’s in the biology curriculum anyway. I just don’t want the schools to be the “moral arbiters of sexual ettiquite” at all. CHILDREN do not need sexual etiquette classes at all. It should be something they are taught is for ADULTS. That’s what they teach about drinking alcohol. They NEED to know what it is, how it’s done, why it’s harmful, and that they SHOULD NOT have it until they are old enough to make healthy decisions about its use.

  16. 16 NSC 68
    September 22, 2005 at 12:56 pm

    PC, I was simply talking about the separation of Church and State as outlined in the Constitution. I was not referring to states’ rights as they fall in a federal context. Sorry for the confusion.

    My point was that the State (i.e. federal government) has no right to restrict anyone’s civil rights (i.e. the right to marry whomever one pleases)

  17. 17 United We Lay
    September 22, 2005 at 3:38 pm

    I believe in my comment I said that adults should tell kids to ask their parents or wait until they’re 18. Isn’t that what you said? I don’t think our positions are any different regarding sex ed. We just use different wording.

    Thanks for the clarification!

  18. 18 Zeppellina
    September 22, 2005 at 5:34 pm

    As I have said on other posts on this issue, I am FOR same sex marriages.

    They should have the same legal rights and privileges which other married couples have.

    It is indeed a government issue, as these rights and privileges have to be protected and safeguarded by writing them into the statute books.

  19. 19 United We Lay
    September 23, 2005 at 10:06 am

    I’m glad to see that so many of you support this civil rights issue. We;ve come a long way from twenty years ago, or even five years ago. This is the one issue that gives me hope that America can change.

  20. 20 The Zombieslayer
    September 23, 2005 at 8:47 pm

    PC – I don’t see this as a Civil Rights issue at all, but as a privacy issue.

  21. 21 United We Lay
    September 25, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    Whom you have sex with is a privacy issue. Whom you are allowed to marry is a civil rights issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Top Posts


I am not perfect. I do my best to practice what I preach, but I am human. My mantra is, "DO NO HARM". I may not always succeed, but I will always try. My goal is to be a better person today than I was yesterday.

Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Incidentally, this notice itself was swiped from Spiiderweb and Dave Away From Home

%d bloggers like this: