wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Barry from brooklyn August 13, 2007 - 10:35AM

  Gay marriage as an issue has been blown out of proportion by the far right and the part of the gay rights movement that is controlled upper middle class urban/suburban gays and lesbians. why does it matter whether it is called Marriage or Civil unions if the effect is the same??

  what self respecting gay couple seriously goes around calling themselves husband and husband? they call themselves "partners".

  
  
• [2] penny from jersey city August 13, 2007 - 11:40AM

  responding to barry:

  it matters if it's called marriage or civil union because by giving it separate names is still saying that the relationships are different and they are still not equal. it also leaves room to judge civil unions differently both socially and legally. yes, civil unions are a step in the right direction, but to be truly equal and fair, if someone wants to be married, partnered, or unioned, there cannot be a difference in the wording within the laws. keeping them separate within the wording of the laws allows for rights to be given and taken away whenever public opinions change.

  i also know a self respecting gay couple who just got "unioned" and vowed to take each other as wives. there can be a difference to some people between being partners and being wives and husbands.

  
  
• [3] chestine from NY August 13, 2007 - 11:56AM

  the relationships ARE different! The RIGHTS are the same. Marriage is a religious institution first and an ancient one - that is also civil - and civil unions are civil creations. In France you can choose whichever arrangement, whether you are hetero or gay - why don't we offer everyone the whole spectrum here as well? Anyway do something to figure this issue out so that we all don't again fall into the hands of the Karl Roves of this world in the next election.

  
  
• [4] Charlie from nyc August 13, 2007 - 12:32PM

  i have little patience for the argument that the institution of marriage is a religious one. we don't require men and women who marry to declare any faith (so it exists as a non-religious institution in the context of our government), and moreover, churches that DO believe in gay marriage are now being barred by the government from exercising that "freedom of religion." the bottom line is that the supreme court has already addressed this issue, and found that institutions that are "separate yet equal" are "inherently unequal." no two ways about it: either people have the same rights, or they don't.

  
  
• [5] penny from jersey city August 13, 2007 - 10:24PM

  how can marriage be only a religious institution in this country if atheist judges can perform the ceremonies. in fact atheists can get ordained online and legally perform a marriage. i feel the argument that marriage is a religious institution has absolutely no merit in this country.