Responses to ''Ga. keeps ban on gay marriage,'' Page One, July 7 [Letters to the Editor]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 7/10/06

[madprof98]

Cynthia Tucker and her comrades have not produced an editorial response to the reinstatement of Georgia's gay marriage ban. Apparently they decided that printing these thoughts from typical AJC readers was the best way to voice their own viewpoint.

[The Sons of Liberty]

It looks like I'll need to move to Canada and renounce my American citizenship

"Delta's ready when you are."

[conservativecorner]

The whining pack of flamers just don't understand the concept of marriage.

[LachlanMinnesota]

I beg to differ: Gays have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, they just don't define them the same. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they choose, but they want an additional right to marry people of the same sex. Everyone is in the same exact legal position.

They are being treated equally, but want more.

[IncPen]

The solution is to get the government out of the business of licensing things.

[cake_crumb]

"Despite those 25 years of tax paying and eight years with my partner, we do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple who have been married for one day."

Heterosexuals HAVE no special rights. It was only because of the Bush administration that the marriage (tax) PENALTY was removed. Gay people seem to be extremely immature.

[Doohickey]

...we do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple...

Folks, I'm a little bit confused. Maybe some kind FReeper can set me straight. What are these new rights I got when I got married? I'm not finding anything in the Constitution that gives married people more rights than singles.

[cake_crumb]

"What are these new rights I got when I got married? I'm not finding anything in the Constitution that gives married people more rights than singles."

Good questions. If you find the answers, let me know.

[Doohickey]

...set me straight...

No pun intended there. Really. *snicker*

[cvq3842]

I'll say it again: it's ironic how many seem to equate the institution of marriage as currently defined with racism or segregation. Yes, marriage is between a man and a woman. No, it is no longer illegal to marry someone of another "race," nor should it be. But there IS legal segregation in society - separate men's and women's restrooms are perfectly legal, even in public buildings. Why? Because MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT - they are equal in the eyes of the law but not identical. The institution of marriage recognizes this.

Reminds me of the man in the Monty Python movie who wanted the right to be pregnant. ignores a basic biological fact, no?

[toddlintown]

"Delta's ready when you are."

If he sits right behind his "life-partner," he can fly United.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Notice that there was not one response stating that many (the majority?) of people think the behavior is reprehensible, or that they may be putting their immortal soul in jeopardy by persisting in such behavior..

[cvq3842]

Good question. But whatever recognition and support married couples do receive is not "discrimination" in my mind, just because it is limited to those who have chosen the type of commitment deemed by society to most likely result in a stable family in which to raise children.

Marriage, by definition, "discriminates" - against singles. But so what? You can't deny someone a job because they are unmarried, but social security, pension and/or health insurance benefits going to spouses has not been held to be "discrimination" against single people. Married people have taken on a status and are recognized for it. Heck, veterans get government health programs and retirement benefits (and the more the better, I say!) - is it "discrimination" because non-veterans don't get them? I think not, of course.

There's a joke here about marriage being like combat, but I hope I'm explaining my overall point. I need more coffee, I think.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"It looks like I'll need to move to Canada and renounce my American citizenship"

Adios

[cake_crumb]

"Notice that there was not one response stating that many (the majority?) of people think the behavior is reprehensible, or that they may be putting their immortal soul in jeopardy by persisting in such behavior.."

I'm guessing that letters representing majority opinions were "filed".

[freedomlover]

Nice screen name.
Good talking to you.

yours
ThingamaBob

[cake_crumb]

"Heck, veterans get government health programs and retirement benefits (and the more the better, I say!) - is it 'discrimination' because non-veterans don't get them? I think not, of course."

You missed the "universal health care is a civil right" theme during the Democrat National Convention.

[Rummyfan]

It appears that the justices are happy to continue with the status quo: no equal rights for gays. I would have thought that some of them would have understood what it feels like to be discriminated against. Will they be enacting Jim Crow laws in the near future, or is that too much of a stretch even for them? We gays have truly become the new, black, hated minority, and at the hands of several African-American state Supreme Court justices! How ironic.

Yes I saw the new 'Gays Only' drinking fountains, and dining room at The Varsity on my last trip to Atlanta.

[Rummyfan]

When did 'homosexual' become a race?

[Rummyfan]

That's my thought too, and it should be empahiszed in this discussion. They want a special right.