Marriage Is a Mixed Blessing (NYT SLIME-BARF ALERT)

New York Times ^ | June 24, 2011 | KATHERINE M. FRANKE

[lbryce]

WILL the New York State Legislature ultimately put itself on the right side of history by allowing same-sex couples to marry? Many of us in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, amazed at how quickly public opinion has evolved on this issue, are eager for this historic civil rights victory.

My hope comes with some worry, however.

While many in our community have worked hard to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry, others of us have been working equally hard to develop alternatives to marriage. For us, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren’t a consolation prize made available to lesbian and gay couples because we are barred from legally marrying. Rather, they have offered us an opportunity to order our lives in ways that have given us greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.

It’s not that we’re antimarriage; rather, we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security. Like New York City’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been in a relationship for over 10 years without marrying, one can be an ardent supporter of marriage rights for same-sex couples while also recognizing that serious, committed relationships can be formed outside of marriage.

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights.

[HushTX]

They want the "right" to be married but they don't actually want to BE married, all of those unmarried "partnerships" will no longer be eligible for employer benefits.

Just like they want to be able to serve openly in the military, but the ones most vocal in demanding it will never even consider ACTUALLY serving.

[lentulusgracchus]

The real reasons are explained in their own words. They want to destroy the meaning of marriage and family and remake society to suit them.

Right. Their real burden is the existence of heterosexual marriage, which is powerfully normative. Simply by existing and continuing and fructifying with new generations, loving heteronormative marriage shows them up as perverts, liars, sterile hedonists, and empty dead ends.

[lentulusgracchus]

those “psychologists” are nuts

One of the first organized political pushes they made was to roll the psychiatric profession. Today, (gay-dominated) Division 44 of the American Psychological Association makes the "rules" about what is normal, healthy sexuality.

The truth is, gays are half-nuts to begin with, and they had to get rid of the (righteous and true) stigma ..... some researchers were getting uncomfortably close to the truth, which was that homosexuality is in large part (about half the time, most of the time in the case of lesbianism) propagated by older homosexuals traducing young people (pederasty, ephebophilia). Totally exposing that "mechanism" would have been a PR disaster, so they had to hijack the profession that owned the truth about homosexuality and its etiology -- which they did, in 1972.

[lentulusgracchus]

Any church refusing to do a ‘gay marriage’ can lose its tax exempt status. NEVER hear this mentioned.

Heterosexuals can look forward to a "reign of terror" ..... and Christians, to a reintroduction of formal persecution, imho. It's already started.

[little jeremiah]

Everything you write is absolutely correct. And persecution has been going on for years and not just to Christians but anyone who is opposed to the fag agenda, especially of course religious believers.

It will get much worse. The amazing thing is how it’s been allowed to get this bad. The gov must be larded with fags. And of course leftists, and the Rs are damned eunuchs or have skeletons in their own closets.

How many “Mark Foleys” are waiting in the wings? How many Rs are closeted homos??

[SteamShovel]

allowing same-sex couples to marry

You can call it what you want.....

.....But it will never be MARRIAGE.

History defines it, you might be able to get lawyers to make a technical rule that it means what you want it to mean, but you can't change the meaning for real. The real, substantial, and historical meaning is a "union between a man and a woman".

[Kakaze]

Gays , liberals and lawyers want this.

Gays and liberals to destroy western life.................lawyers, well divorce is profit for them.

[RichInOC]

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights.

[a fool in paradise]

The lavender mafia advocates IN the media will remain closeted. Every network has a gay anchor even though they are only 2% of the population.

Don’t tell us “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “so bad” if the gay advocates in the nightly news are going to remain closeted as to WHY this issue is “so” important to them.