Laurel962 has a Salon history of heterosexism. This is interesting in two ways. One, she's garned many stars. Why is Salon fond of a homophobe? Two, she's often worthy of those red stars, so, other than her flaming heterosexism, she seems so...normal. I too think she should get some help. Get out. Meet some gay folks.

If your marriage is so fragile and precarious that the state referring to you on some document that no one will ever see as a "female applicant" instead of a "bride" will ruin things for you, then I think you need to develop something commonly referred to in the real world as a "spine."

If your marital bliss is so dependent on the official state usage of antiquated, exclusive jargon, then I think you might need to see a shrink.

to decide who can marry whom. Hey, the South, with all those recent "family values" spouted by all those recent GOPers, once thought marrying your 13 year-old cousin, twice removed, was just fine.

What is comes down to is this: Let people do what they want to do. We heterosexuals have not done such a good job with the marriage thing (divorce stats anyone?). Maybe gay people will be more successful at it.

I don't know why anyone wants to be married anyway. It's such a ridiculous thing. Benefits? Like what do I get with marriage that I cannot get for myself? Social security? Medical? Medicare? Visitation at the hospital by family and friends? Durable Power of Attorney for health and estate planning? What?

I get a combined income.

Of course, in order to have children, marriage is a must. I won't budge on that one. It's the only way to protect them legally. However,sometimes the federal government manages to deny them their constitutional rights and gets in the way of what they are entitled to when federal employees die and they have kids from previous marriages. It seems those kids are automatically left out of having their day in court to challenge the estate of their deceased parent because the federal government deems it "inconvenient" to their Office of Personnel. Isn't that nice?

As far as your "for most of us" crap, get over yourself.

The problem with not involving the government is that you do not get the benefits they provide (i.e. Medical insurance, inheritance rights, etc).

My beef from the start has been that gays are deliberately tweaking hetero culture by calling it 'marriage'.

I know it is so that they gain more ground in the fight, but really, be more politic folks.

Marry amongst yourselves, then fight like HELL to get the benefits of marriage stuff through.

Without the word 'marriage' in there, and instead focusing on the issue of 'life partner' it sure would have been a much easier battle and you would have gotten much further by now.

I think even degenerate rednecks would agree that two old codgers, lifelong platonic friends, who now live together for convenience sake (same sex or opposite) should ALSO have the right to all the benefits married partners have in legal terms, such as property rights, etc.

The 'gay pride' thing blinds people. Modern society accepts gays. NOT ALL OF SOCIETY EVER WILL. So live with your half victory and be practical and put into place those legal protections you guys want.

What Virginia is doing -- in this case, one of many that involve the old dictum that hard (or stupid) cases make for bad laws -- is exactly what California and Massachusetts have done (and presumably Canada) -- taken marriage certificates that asked for "bride" and "groom" and reduced these dignified, time-honored titles to "applicant" or "Party A and Party B".

I think everyone, even gay marriage activists, know what a bride and a groom are, and that they are gender-linked names. When two gay men marry, I notice they tend to call themselves "husbands", though for most of us, "husbands" simply do not exist without "wives".

This is just lame government officials unable to solve a simple problem (an illegal wedding ceremony by two jokesters -- Penelopsky?), where the solution is "invalidate it", and instead are doing something to ruin things for ordinary couples.

I know for myself (and thank god I'm already married and don't envision ever doing it again) that I do not ever want to be an "applicant" (male or female) or "Party A or Party B".

Anyways, the duped officials in the VA courthouse didn't "accidentally marry" anybody -- they did nothing more than get hookwinked into a fraud. Marriage is more than just the legalistic mumbo-jumbo parts -- as in a lot of these discussions, in their enthusiasm to be PC, people conveniently are forgetting that MARRIAGE is not simply a ceremony or a big party or even a government (vs. religious) event. It is, for most of us, a lifetime committment to another person to form and/or raise a family.

Ah, you did mention that.

The problem with not involving the government is that you do not get the benefits they provide (i.e. Medical insurance, inheritance rights, etc).

While this isn't necessarily needed for a couple's happiness, it is definitely something couples should be able to have.

...that just thought of the last scene in "Some Like It Hot"?

Anywho-I'm in total agreement that marriages performed by the government should just be "generic".

...and I've caught myself agreeing with you twice in one week! GAH! What is the world coming to?

Anyway, all sarcasm aside, I agree with you whole heartedly on this one. Why involve government in this marriage thing. Just have everyone (hetero- or homo-sexual) register as domestic partners if they wish to have certain legal protections as a couple. Otherwise, just frigging live together and leave the state out of it. Infinitely easier.

oh...and the other thing I agreed with you on was your post in one of the George Carlin threads. Well, done!

namaste,

Merri

How romantic for state with word virgin in name and tag line "Virginia is for lovers" when oral sex is illegal. Hopeful, Penelopsky no go down on Antonio or vice versa or else they be in extreme big trouble.