AreYouPeopleRetarted

But these are marriage rights, or should be civil-union rights as well... For equality purposes in the marriage sense (with or without the use of the word marriage) gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples...Thus why they are in the union or marriage together. Household rights i also agree with, but in terms of a marriage equality debate, gay couples need to be granted the same rights as straight couples...Then it can be taken further outside of union and marriages, but at least things would be equal in terms of a union and a two person lifetime bond much like marriage. But these are the reason gay people are fighting for gay marriage is because these rights are not granted much like they are with straight couples.. Even if it is not marriage recognition, union recognition with equal civil rights is what is needed. And I don't care to even get married but i want the ability to have these rights. So all people should get these considerations, but the fight right now is on marriage/union and a single sexual lifetime relationship. If that can't be held as equal in terms of a relationship earning these equal rights, then a brother and sister's household rights has even less chance as there's no union involved there which would be on par with a marriage union

Hi Pam, I'm having problems sending you a private message!!!! It wont let me log in when it asks, ( or it lets me log in but does not tell me it has let me) it brings me to a screen that says sucessful and redirecting, but then it redirects to the same login page when I tried to send you a private message... I'd like to change my member name if possible? At he request of myself and another poster. my email is (deleted by moderator) But It won't let me IM or private message you, though it lets me post to a thread while logged in (though it still says login or signup at the top)

where's the private message? I wanted to change the name after the 2nd post lol... Hahaha, i was heated about the judge thing and the hypocrisy i was reading elsewhere before I found this site to post.

I thought the problem though is that without being engaged in a legal 'marriage' in every sense of the word, that society institutions/hospitals/insurance companies do not need to grant these civil rights. I guess it's a matter of separating the two issues. But I know it's up to individual hospitals if they want to accept that union, but if it is an equal marriage then there is no dispute. At this point I don't think you can allow the equal civil rights without marriage until the courts can rule this in some way, which would be a satisfactory middle ground I think for most. But even with there being gay marriage, I still don't think people's pensions are paid to the remaining surviving spouse. I'd prefer to be fighting the gay civil union rights without or with the term marriage. But there are society institutions opposing the equal standings if the word marriage is not involved. Thus government is upsetting religious people by making gay people seek marriage equality because society's institutions do not accept unions in the same manner legally yet.

Ok I guess initiate is the wrong word. But do know that either the LDS or FLDS were HUGE/MAJOR contributors to the campaign. Of course everyone can speak up for whatever they think is wrong..I'm gay and would never even want to get married. But I'm not going to go stop gay people for fighting for that right of equality. It is not even in the traditional religious sense that i would favor marriage equality, but in pension benefits or hospital visitation rights. Should I not be allowed to have the person I chose to spend my life with visit my hospital room much like your husband or wife would be allowed to? So for me, marriage isn't an issue or the issue, but equal rights in terms of marriage benefits are what is needed. I'm not sure most people would disagree with that, and I think there needs to be clarification on equal marriage rights to be granted even if not recognizing the union as a religious one.

I know I apologize for the use of retarded in my name..And same for not realizing there were two groups and not just the LDS. I've just read up the differences between the two church's and the separation after the third leader. So is Mitt Romney LDS and not FLDS? So are LDS in support of this decision on the marriage ban? Or is it the FLDS who put the campaigns together to support prop 8? And once again I apologize for the name, I should have made it something else but was thinking more of a specific example of the disagreement...

Haha, It took me awhile to login because i spelled it wrong and kept trying when i typed it the right way lol.. Sorry if I hvae the wrong group and not the FLDS. But from what I've seen and read about, the LDS were the initiators of Prop 8, and I just don't see that as something that should be occurring. Demanding families to donate large sums to the church to fight the ban of marriage is not something a church should be involved with when they have different fundamental beliefs to the norm as well. And sorry for the name, I should ahve made it something else, but it was refering to the judges and how one was gay but one was also LDS so anyone complaining that one was gay needs to realize that one other guy was also bias.

And doesn't the LDS church think they should be devoting their time and money fighting their own form of inequality? If gay people can't get married, then mormons have even less chance of being socially accepted in terms of marriage. (And at this point Mormons aren't even accepted much like homosexuals are elsewhere in the world.) I think the LDS church should be fighting supreme courts to allow plural marriage rights, and not to be persecuted for their beliefs to have plural wivesm (which is illegal, it is not illegal though people to be gay)...You will continue to be persecuted especially when you try to persecute gay marriage rights when you guys have less rights and respect from the outside society in general.

Are you people seriously this oblivious to the other fact that one of the other 3 judges was from the LDS church...HMMM! So is that not the same conflict of interest for the other side of the bias. If one was gay and one was an adamant denouncer of gay marriage rights, then that evens the playing field and one unbiased person made the decision. So any one trying to use the one judge was gay as an excuse needs to consider that even if his vote was slanted in one way, it was cancelled out by the LDS judge who slanted his vote in the opposite direction.