[GMinSWO]

Surf,

Hold up there buddy. Please do not compare yourself and your misinformed, unreasoned, illogical arguments to those of great leaders like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Malcolm X may have stirred the pot and made people angry, but, unlike you, he made informed logical arguments.

I have always beleived that all humans need to be treated in the same way unless their behavior is harmful to society, like murder and other crimes. The United States does not prosecute people in a court of law (even in Texas now; Lawrence v Texas) for homosexual acts; so by law homosexuality is accpeted. So therefore, I beleive homosexuals should be given the same rights from the State as everyone else, period.

On the issue of marriage; why does the state particpate in this or call it marriage for anyone? The State should call marriage a mutual benefit contract or something of that ilk. I don't see why it matters to anyone that two people of the same sex can share their peoperty and get tax benefits (they can already adopt children without being married). If society can accept the act then what does it matter. Leave all marriage for anyone to religion and religion only. I would not have cared one bit if my wife and I could not have been married by the State; just held to a legally (not religiously) binding contract. If you have a problem with homosexuals getting this contract (marriage) you have a problem with the act itself being accepted by society; I don't think you can have it both ways. I have probably made both sides angry (because of my comment to Surf) but this is just the only logical conclusion that can be made from the US Supreme Court case of Lawrence v Texas in 2003.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by GMinSWO

Surf,

Hold up there buddy. Please do not compare yourself and your misinformed, unreasoned, illogical arguments to those of great leaders like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Malcolm X may have stirred the pot and made people angry, but, unlike you, he made informed logical arguments.

I have always beleived that all humans need to be treated in the same way unless their behavior is harmful to society, like murder and other crimes. The United States does not prosecute people in a court of law (even in Texas now; Lawrence v Texas) for homosexual acts; so by law homosexuality is accpeted. So therefore, I beleive homosexuals should be given the same rights from the State as everyone else, period.

On the issue of marriage; why does the state particpate in this or call it marriage for anyone? The State should call marriage a mutual benefit contract or something of that ilk. I don't see why it matters to anyone that two people of the same sex can share their peoperty and get tax benefits (they can already adopt children without being married). If society can accept the act then what does it matter. Leave all marriage for anyone to religion and religion only. I would not have cared one bit if my wife and I could not have been married by the State; just held to a legally (not religiously) binding contract. If you have a problem with homosexuals getting this contract (marriage) you have a problem with the act itself being accepted by society; I don't think you can have it both ways. I have probably made both sides angry (because of my comment to Surf) but this is just the only logical conclusion that can be made from the US Supreme Court case of Lawrence v Texas in 2003.

actually I don't think you made both sides angry. As for marriage, our foster daughter is gay, in a relationship for 15 years, very much a solid relationship with domestic partners status and she does not beleive in gay mariage either. She says it is a religious ceremony between and man and woman; cut and dry!!!!

Nita

[Stacy From Cali]

Originally Posted by nmnita

actually I don't think you made both sides angry. As for marriage, our foster daughter is gay, in a relationship for 15 years, very much a solid relationship with domestic partners status and she does not beleive in gay mariage either. She says it is a religious ceremony between and man and woman; cut and dry!!!!

Nita

Not cut and dry, simply one person's opinion. I am married and rather horrified to think people would see it as a religious thing since I am basically an athiest. I entered into the institution purely for the civil benefits.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Stacy From Cali

Not cut and dry, simply one person's opinion. I am married and rather horrified to think people would see it as a religious thing since I am basically an athiest. I entered into the institution purely for the civil benefits.

I guess I should have worded it, according to the way she looks at it. There is no discussion as far as she is concerned. She sees it as a ceremony (religious) between one man and one woman, I happen to see it the same way. Again, we differ...As an athiest you wouldn't see the religion in the ceremony.

Nita

[SurfOmaha]

Originally Posted by Stacy From Cali

Not cut and dry, simply one person's opinion. I am married and rather horrified to think people would see it as a religious thing since I am basically an athiest. I entered into the institution purely for the civil benefits.

Thank you. And there is an entire group people restricted from enjoy those civil rights and benefits due to another groups religious beliefs!

[thatguy1]

Originally Posted by SurfOmaha

Thank you. And there is an entire group people restricted from enjoy those civil rights and benefits due to another groups religious beliefs!

Surf!! You finally made a valid point!

[GMinSWO]

It is cut and dry; leave the religious ceremony to religions and leave the State contract to the State. I just don't see the problem with giving benefits provided by the State to people that the State beleives are conducting their lives in a legal manner. It sounds to me if you do not want the State to confer benefits to a group of people that the State seems to have no problem with, you must have an overriding problem with that group of people. I say live and let live and if a group of people have violated some kind of moral code and there is judging diety then we will all meet the judgment of him/her/it/ in the end. If there is no judging diety what harm has allowing homosexuals to have marriage benefits from the State done to you.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by GMinSWO

It is cut and dry; leave the religious ceremony to religions and leave the State contract to the State. I just don't see the problem with giving benefits provided by the State to people that the State beleives are conducting their lives in a legal manner. It sounds to me if you do not want the State to confer benefits to a group of people that the State seems to have no problem with, you must have an overriding problem with that group of people. I say live and let live and if a group of people have violated some kind of moral code and there is judging diety then we will all meet the judgment of him/her/it/ in the end. If there is no judging diety what harm has allowing homosexuals to have marriage benefits from the State done to you.

who are you directing this to and who said they didn't want homosexuals to have rights? I think you lost me somewhere, i don't know if others know what you are referring to? The difference may be in the wording..not the legal rights.

Nita

[SurfOmaha]

Originally Posted by nmnita

actually I don't think you made both sides angry. As for marriage, our foster daughter is gay, in a relationship for 15 years, very much a solid relationship with domestic partners status and she does not beleive in gay mariage either. She says it is a religious ceremony between and man and woman; cut and dry!!!!

Nita

If you had any clue about the issue here in Nebraska, you would know that gay marriage, gay civil unions, and gay domestic partnerships are banned in Nebraska, by Nebraska's gay hating amendment, formerly known as Initiative 416, passed in 2000. Any state law passed to allow a gay person's lifepartner in Nebraska any guarantees of the other possessions would violate this amendment as it is worded, period. Go to the links I posted!!! Any acknowledgement of some type of same-sex relationship is banned in Nebraska by this amendment.

[SurfOmaha]

Originally Posted by GMinSWO

It is cut and dry; leave the religious ceremony to religions and leave the State contract to the State. I just don't see the problem with giving benefits provided by the State to people that the State beleives are conducting their lives in a legal manner. It sounds to me if you do not want the State to confer benefits to a group of people that the State seems to have no problem with, you must have an overriding problem with that group of people. I say live and let live and if a group of people have violated some kind of moral code and there is judging diety then we will all meet the judgment of him/her/it/ in the end. If there is no judging diety what harm has allowing homosexuals to have marriage benefits from the State done to you.

In Nebraska, this law goes beyond any religious ceremony, gays in Nebraska are stripped in of any union, whether it is marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership. Any law that would establish any resemblance of the state recognizing such a relationship would violate this gay hating amendment!

Nebraska Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.

ACLU Nebraska - Initiative 416 Timeline of Events

Here's some examples for other gay issues

http://www.aclunebraska.org/glbt.htm

Fighting Initiative 416
http://www.aclunebraska.org/fighting_initiative_416.htm