Altered Lives

I agree with bimmer3's suggestion that we (being the gay community) should not call those who do not support gay marriage bigots. If someone does not support gay marriage so be it and if they do that is wonderful. Focus should be on the fundamental idea of equality! It is interesting that bimmer3 suggest that the gay community is forcing their beliefs on evryone else. Perhaps he has forgotten that is exactly what the religious right is doing at the moment. They are forcing their beliefs that marriage is held exclusively for heterosexuals on those of us who do not share that same view. I am fine with religion sanctioning a form of marriage to only heterosexuals. However, once the government gets involved and begins also sanctioning marriage it is time to end the ties to religion. I believe our founding fathers in forming this country sought to have a government free of religion. The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which individuals it will sanction to form a union (which is at least I would equate it to a contract). The Constitution of the United States holds that no one shall be discriminated against in the forming and enforcing of a contract. It is interesting that someone would think that we choose to be this way....yes I choose to be chastised by society, my family and others around me. I choose to be marginalized and deemed a partial citizen in the rights that I am given in the eyes of my government. One does not choose to be homosexual one is or one is not at birth. Equating the movement to the racial discrimination that occured not to long ago in our country is not an insult it is a mere analogy. Funny how we Americans have such short memories of our country's history. When women were demanding the right to vote men yelled and argued what is next if my dog wants to vote should we also allow him? When African Americans got the right to vote some Americans were up in arms clammering this would lead to the downfall of our Country. When blacks were allowed to marry whites again bigots cried foul using the same slippery slope arguement which has been relied upon long ago in an effort to scare individuals from change. I suppose that gay marriage really comes down to change and that people whether they be American or not fear change and will fight to the last breath against change. Yet, like women receiving the right to vote, blacks receiving the right to vote, and inter-racial marriage we will adapt and though change at first will be hard fought against we will move forward as we always have in the past ....for better or worse....

There was a similar case in 2001 where Diane Whipple was mauled to death by two Presa Canarios while she was trying to open her apartment door. Her long term partner, Sharon Smith, was force to sit in the ICU
waiting room while Diane lay dieing alone because Sharon wasn't "family".

No one should ever tell another who their family is. Until you walk in my shoes, do not shun me.

I don't have a problem with gay civil unions, but I don't agree with gay marriage. Those that argue that marriage has never been defined to be between a man and a woman have their head in the sand.

Would one condemn straight married couples if they failed, somehow, to plan for such a tragic event? Actually, they needn't make such plans; by being legally married, the state would assume that the surv iving spouse has certain protections, thus negating the experiences Strong had at the emergency room and the funeral home. If Strong's other half had been a man, she would not have needed to go to the state capitol to fight for even some basic rights as they would have been assumed to have been hers already.

The fact is that heterosexual couples have certain rights granted by federal and state law. They need only one piece of paper--the marriage license--to have those rights recognized in all 50 states and even in other countries. Gay and lesbian couples have to pay additional for some of those same rights. They have to pay for attorney fees. They have to pay for the necessary forms to be filed. They then have to carry those papers with them where ever they go "just in case." This is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantees and, yet, too few complain because so many are already protected. So what id so-and-so has less rights so long as I have all of mine? What heterosexual couple would want to have to file numerous documents with the courts and then carry all of their paperwork so they can visit their loved one in the hospital, ensure their loved ones inherit their property--which they may have already helped pay for--or make the necessary medical decisions? Is the Terry Schiavo case really so attractive to us that we wish to pit loved ones against one another?

The simple fact is that Strong and her partner failed to adequately plan for just such an eventuality. Death is itself inevitable. What it appears Strong is doing is using a bit of slight of hand with her argument.
Histrionics aside, it appears to me that the she is building her and her partners failur to plan for the eventuality of death in a committed realationship between two people, nevermind their respective genders, as a compelling argument in favor of same sex marriages in the State of Washinton.
This is simply slopping thinking on her part and shameful if such an argument sways the Washington Legislature.

Let's understand a few basic and simple facts here:

Heterosexual couples who are married do not have to go to a lawyer to have forms drawn up to give their partners certain legal protections, such as being able to make necessary medical decisions.

The overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians were raised by heterosexual parents (thus, arguing the possibility that heterosexuality is the direct leading cause of homosexuality).

People in prison have more legal rights than gays and lesbians do when it comes to marriage. You can get married while in prsion and never have to live with your new spouse, but you can live with your same-sex partner and never have the legal right to get married.

Many people do not have sex until after marriage, but in spite of the fact that I have been with the same man for 20 years, I cannot get married after sex.

A heterosexual couple can get married and have all of the financial discounts that apply to marriage, such as auto insurance, after knowing each other for even just minutes, but my partner and I cannot have these benefits because we cannot get married.

If heterosexual married couples had to spend the same amount of money to guarantee their rights and had to keep the documents with them at all times, what types of chaos would be caused in the hospital emergency room?

People condemen homosexuality because of the Bible, but what about people who are not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim? Should their values be discounted because they go to the "wrong" church or temple?

Why should Britney Spears' marriage of 55 hours to Allen Alexander be more of a marriage, be more pleasing to G-d, than a committed relationship of 20 years between to men? "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," remember this phrase from some place?

If someone or some objects to gay marriages, then don't marry gay couples in your church! However, don't confuse your religious rites with human rights. Much of Europe has figured this out, but we seem clueless.

By the way, civil unions are not the same thing as marriage. Civil unions only give the rights granted by that one state. Marriage actually grants over 1,500 additional rights!

Now, one last question, how on earth is gay marriage a threat to heterosexual marriage? I mean, if we gays are allowed to marry tomorrow, will that many straight people seek a divorce so that they too can marry someone of the same gender? If so, then they aren't really straight and their marriage isn't really a marriage if someone is just waiting for a way out.

halstead.bill@gmail.com

This is a sad story, but one that was completely avoidable. Setting aside the question of whether or not these women should have been able to marry, they clearly failed to avail themselves of the legal protections offered by Washington State. If the story is accurate, they had no advanced medical directive, no durable medical power of attorney, and no other legal documents that would have protected them in this horrifying situation.

Ms. Strong is doing other couples in her state a disservice by failing to acknowledge her own failure to protect herself and by failing to promote the existing protections that others can take advantage while they work toward changing their state's law to allow same-sex marriage.

This story truly scares me as to what would happen to my life partner should anything happen to me! Last year, the people of Colorado voted against civil unions after a slick as campaign by some groups, like Focus On The Family, implied gays and lesbians can already have the same rights as heterosexuals if they would just pay for the court papers and lawyers.

dsf

Tach,
They loved each other. God is Love. Where is the brazen unrepentent sin in that????????

I am a 68 year old white male. Although I don't think it should be called marriage, I see nothing wrong with legally binding relationships. I have had the same wife for 35 years but do not see same sex unions as a threat to my marriage.

I am so saddened to see what Charlene has gone through over this past year. My brother-in-law has been with his partner for over 20 years. I could not imagine, whether your straight, gay, or anywhere inbetween what it woud be like to lose your partner after being together for so many years. It is time that our country recognize gay couples, and have a constitution ammendment that says that a marriage is recognized regardless of what sexual orientation one may be. It is time that the right wing extremists be shut-down, and a voice of reasonable conscience be heard through our country. My prayer goes out to Charlene, and any other family who has a gay member that he or she never experiences what Charlene went through in their lifetime. At least eight great states in our country have listened to the voice of the people. My prayer is that the voice of reason will go to the rest of the United States.