yay minnesota!

[leah]

this collection of photos gave me a big dumb grin and eyes full of happy tears. how can anyone be against this kind of happiness??

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-75-m ... -first-day

[Gaazy]

Laeh ive warned you before and ill warn you again, BE CAREFUL, you can get teh AIDs from just typing it

[leah]

i can already feel it creeping up my forearms.

[Tikker]

.

[Spazz]

Countdown to some asshole like mindia using the first gay divorce as a new reason why they shouldnt be allowed to get married

[brinstar]

i'm sure 'murca will be fighting over abortion and climate change and the social safety net and all that other shit for decades to come

but gat dang the tide is turning fast on gay marriage and weed

[Tuggan]

i guess if youre a lesbian over 50 the ellen look is a requirement for membership.

[Harrison]

I don't understand how legality ever came into marriage in the first place.

The government needs to fuck off with trying to tell everyone what they can and cannot do. It's disgusting how much people let complete strangers control their lives.

[Arlos]

I don't understand how legality ever came into marriage in the first place.

The government needs to fuck off with trying to tell everyone what they can and cannot do. It's disgusting how much people let complete strangers control their lives.

Uh, governments have been involved in marriage since the concept of governments was invented. Certainly back to the ancient Egyptians and earlier.

Governments have been involved with it because of property and inheritance issues if for no other reasons. Not to mention, marriages of important figures have political implications as well, especially back then, when you had marriages sealing alliances between important families, countries, etc.

So yeah. Raging against governments for some perceived taking away of your freedoms by being involved with marriage in the first place is spectacularly misguided.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

As a US Citizen, I believe any couple should be entitled to the same civil marriage contract regardless of their sex or orientation. Religion is about philosophy and morality. Government is about equality and fairness. There is a melting pot between the two, but the lines are pretty easy to follow and support in this regard. My morality does not have to be yours, but anyone should be entitled to the same legal protection given to anyone else. That is just common sense.

As a Catholic I believe the sanctity of marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I do not support 'gay marriage' from a religious perspective, but then again I think marriage of a civil variety does not and should not matter in a religious context. I am concerned about the future lawsuits once gay marriage is mainstreamed regarding Catholic Church's 'discriminating' by not performing gay weddings. As absurd as it seems, the same lawsuits are occurring now in Catholic Hospitals regarding abortifacients.

I personally think we should completely remove the word marriage from the legal definition and just use civil union for everyone, period. Plus, it'd help the divorce statistics, ya know since so many less marriages would dissolve.

[brinstar]

As a US Citizen, I believe any couple should be entitled to the same civil marriage contract regardless of their sex or orientation. Religion is about philosophy and morality. Government is about equality and fairness. There is a melting pot between the two, but the lines are pretty easy to follow and support in this regard. My morality does not have to be yours, but anyone should be entitled to the same legal protection given to anyone else. That is just common sense.

As a Catholic I believe the sanctity of marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I do not support 'gay marriage' from a religious perspective, but then again I think marriage of a civil variety does not and should not matter in a religious context. I am concerned about the future lawsuits once gay marriage is mainstreamed regarding Catholic Church's 'discriminating' by not performing gay weddings. As absurd as it seems, the same lawsuits are occurring now in Catholic Hospitals regarding abortifacients.

I personally think we should completely remove the word marriage from the legal definition and just use civil union for everyone, period. Plus, it'd help the divorce statistics, ya know since so many less marriages would dissolve.

(fewer)

ultimately you are right lyion, in a perfect USA i think that a legal union should be available to any two adults period, and conversely that a marriage should hold zero legal weight whatsoever. of course you should have the option of doing both at once, if your particular religion of choice is cool with that. but OTOH if tuggan and spazz wanna get united for the property/tax benefits, so be it - then if they find some ladies who don't mind NOT getting the benefits of a union, they can each get married in a church. point is, until the concepts of legal union and marriage are severed from each other we're stuck with the current approach

which means yes, the govt should afford any two adults the right to enter into a marriage (in any sense of the word) - no matter whether it's performed by a religious official or a public official. and as i've stated several times before, the govt should NOT have the authority to force unwilling religious bodies/officials to perform marriages they do not approve of, and i will protest loudly if that ever becomes the case. i don't think it will though

[Arlos]

The problem with your plan, Lyion, is that you run into an issue with there being "separate but equal" conditions for the same thing. As we all know, Constitutionally, that's a no-no, because generally separate but equal isn't. Also, what about religions that DON'T have an issue with the concept of Gay Marriage? Then you have SOME gay couples getting "married" and some that can't, due to the tenets of their religion? You know that would lead people to just get married under the tenets of a faith that didn't object, regardless of their own beliefs, just so they could have the term "married" applied to them. How is THAT right? As we've seen, the term is a powerful symbol to a lot of people, and couples, regardless of type, want to get MARRIED, not Civil-Union'ed...

No, the only fair thing is to just have one status, married. For some that will happen in church, for some it will be presided over by a public official, but legally and lexically it's the same state. Obviously, no religion should EVER be forced into presiding over a marriage which violates its tenets. That would be utterly wrong, and I doubt it will ever happen. But the disapproval of some faiths about such things cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of equality for everyone, or from allowing people to get married under the auspices of organizations that DO approve.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

I personally think we should completely remove the word marriage from the legal definition and just use civil union for everyone, period. Plus, it'd help the divorce statistics, ya know since so many less marriages would dissolve.

Its not a divorce if you get un civil unioned ? Im not sure what your saying here ?


Ive been kinda quiet on this thread cuz im tired of talking about gay marriage. It kind of pisses me off that so many religious folks think that they religious bigotry should apply to anyone except them. I also think churches should be forced to comply under threat of losing tax exemption. I dont believe in seperate but equal and the conservative "compromise" creates just that. I also think it would be a lot more constructive to try to help all these divorced people stay married than to try to stop new couples from giving it a shot.

Also lyion if marriage is so sacred than why is everyone divorced ?

[Lyion]

Its not a divorce if you get un civil unioned ? Im not sure what your saying here ?

That was tongue in cheek, Spazz. People will split up, regardless of what we call relationships. Especially now that relationships have so little meaning to so many.

Also lyion if marriage is so sacred than why is everyone divorced ?

That would require it's own thread and a lot of various opinions. TLDR: Divorce is easy and relationships are hard, plus many do not fully commit and work at them. Family tends to mean less now then it did before, in my very biased opinion.

The problem with your plan, Lyion, is that you run into an issue with there being "separate but equal" conditions for the same thing. As we all know, Constitutionally, that's a no-no, because generally separate but equal isn't. Also, what about religions that DON'T have an issue with the concept of Gay Marriage? Then you have SOME gay couples getting "married" and some that can't, due to the tenets of their religion? You know that would lead people to just get married under the tenets of a faith that didn't object, regardless of their own beliefs, just so they could have the term "married" applied to them. How is THAT right? As we've seen, the term is a powerful symbol to a lot of people, and couples, regardless of type, want to get MARRIED, not Civil-Union'ed...

Your argument is the exact reason why I don't want some sort of federal statute on marriage, as it's a very short ride to a lawsuit saying the Catholic Church is discriminating against gays by not performing same sex weddings.

Marriage is a split commodity coming from both religious and civil directions. My answer is have the state not be involved in 'marriage' at all. Have religious groups not be involved in civil unions and the state contract portion at all. If certain denominations allow gay marriage, great. If others choose not to, equally fine. It comes down to religious freedom. However, from the state perspective there is no separate but equal setup, since anyone and everyone in a partnership is in the same 'civil union'.

The fact it is so meaningful to so many in different ways is the exact reason why it's such a legal slippery slope.

[Tikker]

.

[Lyion]

I guess it's better to be a girl in Canada.. but wait, it sure sounds like if you have a real issue as a girl, they are happy to let you die. Although I guess who really cares. Everyone important from there comes to the U.S. for real health care.

Canadian women in the province of Quebec are doing their best to avoid long wait times for surgeries for deadly cancers, reports the Montreal Gazette. The problem is spread across provincial hospitals and doctors are now “refusing to accept new patients quickly because they can’t treat them.”

“Long surgery wait times for deadly ovarian, cervical and breast cancers in Quebec are three times longer than government benchmarks, leading some desperate patients to shop around for an operating room,” according to the Gazette.

The latest Quebec provincial government figures show that over an 11-month span, 7,780 patients in Montreal waited six months or more for day surgeries and another 2,957 patients waited the same amount of time for operations that require hospitalization.

“Canada’s system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who endure inhumane delays for medically necessary and in some cases life-saving care,” Nadeem Esmail, Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email. “Wait lists for medically necessary health care are Canada’s shame.”

Experts say that gynecological cancer cases are the worst because of how quickly the cancer spreads by the time it is detected, and patients are waiting as long as three months to have cancers removed, instead of four weeks.

One worried patient, a mother of five children who waited three months for surgery for invasive breast cancer, said she is worried about the effects of such a long wait. After surgery, she paid $800 for a bone scan in a private clinic rather than wait five months for a scan at the Jewish General Hospital.

“The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm,” Esmail said.

One female patient and mother of five children waited three months for breast cancer surgery, and told the Gazette she is worried about the effects that such a long wait could have. After her surgery, she went to a private clinic and paid $800 for a bone scan instead of waiting five months for a scan at the hospital.

“It’s a crisis for Quebec women,” Lucy Gilbert, director of gynecological oncology and the gynecologic cancer multi-disciplinary team at the McGill University Health Centre, told the Gazette.

Gilbert told the Gazette that there are some days she cannot face going to work at the Royal Victoria Hospital and dealing with crying patients.

“Put yourself in their place. … I have difficulty making eye contact with patients. I am ashamed to be in such a situation,” she said.

“Cancer patients are very vulnerable — no patient should wait, but especially cancer,” said Dr. Robert Sabbah, president of the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec, also adding that some patients go elsewhere for care to reduce wait times.

Some patients are even heading to the U.S. for treatment — 46,159 Canadians in 2011 — according to the nonpartisan Fraser Institute. Among those who sought treatment outside Canada, 4,600 were from Quebec, with 214 of them receiving gynecological treatment and 664 getting general surgery.

Fraser surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded and a 104 percent increase from wait times in 1993.

“People are suffering. People are waiting too long,” said Gilbert. “This should not happen. No matter how good your surgery is, no matter how good your chemotherapy is, if you delay the surgery there could be a problem. The cancer grows. The cancer spreads.”

Most patients are getting surgery within three months, according to Sabbah, but he added that it is rare for a doctor to have wait lists under four weeks. Oncology still remains a “bottleneck” due to budget deficits and shortages of staff and equipment.

“Funding is not the problem: Canada’s health care system is one of the developed world’s most expensive universal access health care systems,” Esmail said. “Yet, Canadians endure some of the longest waits for medical care in the developed world.”

“Canada’s government-dominated approach to health care is failing those stricken with illness,” he concluded.

[Zanchief]

nonpartisan Fraser Institute

This was my favorite part. Pssst, if you want to sound smart, don't quote the Frasier institute. It's a rightwing institution the government uses for political smear. Conservatives hate health care. This article was basically written to convince people who already think that of that fact. Success!

Also, this has nothing to do with this thread. Stop assholing up Leah's happy thread with your natural personality traits.

[Tikker]

.

[brinstar]

assholing

i love that this is a verb

[leah]

Also, this has nothing to do with this thread. Stop assholing up Leah's happy thread with your natural personality traits.

seriously, jeez

[leah]

That would require it's own thread and a lot of various opinions. TLDR: Divorce is easy and relationships are hard, plus many do not fully commit and work at them. Family tends to mean less now then it did before, in my very biased opinion.

surely you don't believe that marriages fail only because people don't work hard enough at them? i agree that's the problem for probably a significant amount of divorces, but surely you know that's not all of it? also have you ever been divorced?? in my opinion as someone whose parents divorced late in life and in the opinions of my friends who are divorced, as well as tons of other divorcees: divorce is not easy. yes, the world is full of idiots like britney spears who get married on a whim and then realize their mistake and have the marriage dissolved quickly and seemingly without a second thought. but for every moron like that, there's a handful of people who gave it their all but just couldn't go on being beaten down emotionally by an unhappy marriage.

there's this blog i started reading long before poops and i got married or engaged called A Practical Wedding, and they regularly have posts that delve into the hard, meaty stuff that goes on with divorce. a few posts come to mind, especially the first one:

http://apracticalwedding.com/2011/06/re ... alled-off/
http://apracticalwedding.com/2011/09/kn ... e-divorce/
http://apracticalwedding.com/2010/08/fr ... -and-back/

i'm just saying, anyone who says "divorce is the easy way out" has apparently never talked to someone who's been through a gut-wrenching divorce.




...anyway. let's just be happy for the gay people of minnesota who can finally be recognized as equal human beings. however you feel about the religious aspects of gay marriage, it's still important to acknowledge that gay people are, in fact, people and deserve to be treated as such.

[Trielelvan]

All I have to say is:

[Jay]

All I have to say is:

[Gaazy]