Carrie Underwood comes out in support of gay marriage

[æonpax]

Country sensation Carrie Underwood has voiced her support of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S.

The former “American Idol” champion, who is a devout Christian, insists her own marriage to hockey player Mike Fisher has made her believe all American citizens should be allowed to marry who they want.

She tells The Independent newspaper, “As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry. ~ http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/201...-gay-marriage/ ~

`
Generally, I don't care what celebrities think about anything. Their opinions hold no more weight than anyone else's. I'm also not a fan of her's and don't really care listening to Country music (I don't dislike it, I just don't listen to it) but in this case, Underwood's fan base comes from a predominantly Christian base, fundamentalists or so I hear and an endorsement from her, may be able to convince some of her fans that it's all about love...specifically, unconditional love.

[darkeyes]

A petition was handed in to No 10 yesterday of about half a mill signatures opposing same sex marriage... the Church of England is currently doing it's nut about government proposals to pass legislation to allow civil marriage for same sex couples... most people in the UK support same sex marriage even allowing for these little blips and the consultation period on it for England and Wales ends tomorrow... Cameron is pro.. some of his cabinet not (the more important things to do Brigade despite the next year being a remarkably light legislative parliamentary session.. ok.. the bigots).. even to their credit most Tory MPs are pro but overwhelmingly Parliament is pro same sex marriage.. good for them.. now the Church is coming out with things like "the biggest threat to the church in 500 years" and "war being declared between Church and state". That's how it does.... who rules this country? Ok Don't answer that... its open to question..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-7845045.html

Giles Fraser write a good comment on this issue and it was published in yesterday's Guardian.. he is the guy if u remember who resigned from his job as Dean because of the heavy handed tactics of the Church over the St Paul's Occupy protest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ge?INTCMP=SRCH

The Indy is sound on same sex marriage and Christina Patterson wrote this also published yesterday

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ge?INTCMP=SRCH

and its leading article of today confirms this..

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-7844862.html

For my own little part of these islands same sex marriage remains a very live issue and I expect legislation to be passed north of the border before the south,, can't wait... had a gr8 civil partnership bash so fully intend to do same for the day I can call Kate legally what she is now.. my wife... and it brings up my goosebumps every time I think she calls it me... and I do like a good party as all know... sure there are more important issues for the lgbt... but no one can say this isn't a bloody important one and from it potentially so many other things can fruit as it is yet another break down of the historical discrimination against our kind...

[tenni]

This is really old for us in Canada but it is surprising how some will bring back issuesthat society has resolved (in Canada an MP has attempted to declare fetus a person with support from the rigid right. I recall darkeyes mentioning that it never seems tobe over.

As far as the significance of celebrabracy endorsement, thatis an interesting question. I suspect that it depends onthe issue. Celebraties seem to sell some products and charity fund raising. I recall the Dixie Chicks being slammed for taking a political stand. I amuncertain to what factorsmake it work or backfire.7

[darkeyes]

The trouble is, Tenni, in this country, like much of the US, and indeed the US as a whole, and in other countries, it isn't resolved... but even when it is, you are right, there will be those who will revisit it and try and get things reversed... and assuming u mean celebrity endorsement, this is something I have always had mixed feelings about... but celebs are human beings too and have opinions and they should not be discouraged from saying what they want to... but I agree wiith u.. it can be a double edged sword and as likely to blow up in their and our faces as to win hearts and minds.. as much as anything, I think it depends on who the celeb is which way it goes because so many of us treat them as intellectual lightweights and insincere and only opening their gobs for the publicity the cause provides......yet many are sincere and honest and very cerebral and have much to say which is of value...

[æonpax]

**** Update ****

Christian Conservatives Slam Carrie Underwood’s Pro Gay Marriage Stance - Conservative Christians are criticizing country music icon Carrie Underwood after she announced her support for marriage equality this week.....Many fans that don’t share the same views as Underwood have turned their backs on the country star, however. Some have taken to social media to attack the star, Gay Star News notes.... - http://www.edgeboston.com/news/natio...arriage_stance

Now who'd of thought????

[darkeyes]

I know Joan began this thread because of one person's, one Christian person's view on same sex marriage in the US, but a poll conducted by MORI showed that 68% of Scottish people support the principle of same gender marriage... the second most powerful Christian denomination in the country has cried "foul", telling us that the question was skewed.. the largest, the Church of Scotland is much less poisoned against it and only withdrew its formal support of same gender marriage when a minority of clergy and members threatened a schism in the Kirk.... and actually many Roman Catholics also support the principle.. of course an opinion poll is only an opinion poll but and questions can be skewed to maximise the probability of getting a desired result.. it is easy to cry foul about an OP.. yet the SNP, and several other parties were elected on platforms of passing same gender marriage into law, after public consultation certainly, and these parties between them, governing and opposition, hold all but a handful of the seats in the Scottish Parliament.. so was the last Scottish election a foul also? And in a couple of years time, when the next elections take place, these same parties will have the same policy in place and as things stand are likely to be in an even greater majority in the Parliament, will that result also be a foul?

What the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and other anti-same sex marriage supporters means is this... all polls are fouls until they produce the result they want.. well I have news for them..that isn't how democracy works...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-18478748

[æonpax]

`
I attended a Catholic sponsored University for almost eight years and still have strong ties there. Being raised until I was 12, by hard-line Baptists who disliked Catholics and then by an aunt who was agnostic, I went in with this very negative attitude about them. In time, as I discussed and learned more about its faithful and doctrine, it changed.

As I understand it, Catholic dogma is not against being gay, lesbian or bisexual, per se. At the root of it is something the Catholic church calls "Sacred Tradition." I'm not going to explain that other than to say there is human law and divine law. They believe that sex is ultimately a gift from God to procreate so that a human...this is important...who has a SOUL...can share in Gods love.

Any act that denies God his/her SOUL, is a sin against God. In this case, if homosexuals have sex and they cannot reproduce, it denies God a soul. The exact same thing applies to heterosexuals who have sex without the intent of procreation, they are denying God a soul.

It's actually a bit more complex but this is a good enough generalization. Agree or disagree theologically, I don't care.

Most of the Catholic lay I know, support Gay marriage despite what the media says or what their bishops intone. So it's not really being homosexual per se that the Catholic church objects to....just the reproductive part.

[darkeyes]

Deviation from the matter at hand but since u raise the subject of souls, Joan, I was discussing IVF with a friend who is a Catholic who questions whether or not a child conceived through IVF can have a soul.. his view is that since there was no coming together of man and woman it is unlikely that such children can possibly have a soul because the concept of IVF itself is a sin against God and if the child cannot be blamed for that act, it remains in his mind very dubious whether that child has a soul...

It isn't something that the Roman Catholic teaches as far as I know, although the Church does not approve of IVF... nor is it something that I can get too hung up about since being an athiest I do not believe any of us has a soul... I know..I keep the oddest of friends around *laffs*.. but he is Jambo... so he isn't all bad...

[æonpax]

Deviation from the matter at hand but since u raise the subject of souls, Joan, I was discussing IVF with a friend who is a Catholic who questions whether or not a child conceived through IVF can have a soul.. his view is that since there was no coming together of man and woman it is unlikely that such children can possibly have a soul because the concept of IVF itself is a sin against God and if the child cannot be blamed for that act, it remains in his mind very dubious whether that child has a soul...

It isn't something that the Roman Catholic teaches as far as I know, although the Church does not approve of IVF... nor is it something that I can get too hung up about since being an athiest I do not believe any of us has a soul... I know..I keep the oddest of friends around *laffs*.. but he is Jambo... so he isn't all bad...

`

Fran, I took this "Intro" course into Catholic Theology, which was meant basically for Theology and Philosophy majors, for personal enlightenment. I was a journalism major. I barely passed it. The reading load was too much. But I did pick up a few things here and there...enough to know that my own eclectic beliefs suit me just fine. I also gained a more detailed understanding of Catholicism.

The soul, in it's myriad of personifications, is an abstract conceptualization that cuts across just about all known belief systems. Everyone has their own perception of what it is, isn't or even whether it exists or not. That works for me.

Catholic beliefs only pertain to Catholics but as far I understand, the RCC believe in "life" at the moment of conception, regardless of how it was achieved...conjugal or otherwise, such as IVF. Theologically, "life" and "soul" are the same.

[darkeyes]

Back to the matter at hand, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury is often portrayed as Archbishop of Wonderful and Compassion.. that he is a rather weak man and likely to bow before prejudice has often been shown about issues other than same sex marriage and sexuality, and has compromised his own principles on many an occasion over the years when faced with difficult choices is well known... your comment about procreational sex rang a bell with me so I scanned the weekend's Observer to find this.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iams-hypocrisy

He isn't a man who will fight his corner... and if the Church of England is disestablished over the issue of same sex marriage and even the the Anglican community breaks under the strain of bigotry from other parts of the world, So? Just as I criticise the Church of Scotland for it's retreat from a position of support for Scottish legislation because of a threat of schism, then I can do little different in respect of any other institution, religious or otherwise which does much the same.. a house built on a foundation of clay as they say...

[æonpax]

Back to the matter at hand, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury is often portrayed as Archbishop of Wonderful and Compassion.. that he is a rather weak man and likely to bow before prejudice has often been shown about issues other than same sex marriage and sexuality, and has compromised his own principles on many an occasion over the years when faced with difficult choices is well known... your comment about procreational sex rang a bell with me so I scanned the weekend's Observer to find this.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iams-hypocrisy

He isn't a man who will fight his corner... and if the Church of England is disestablished over the issue of same sex marriage and even the the Anglican community breaks under the strain of bigotry from other parts of the world, So? Just as I criticise the Church of Scotland for it's retreat from a position of support for Scottish legislation because of a threat of schism, then I can do little different in respect of any other institution, religious or otherwise which does much the same.. a house built on a foundation of clay as they say...

`
Religion needs to stay out of politics...period.

[darkeyes]

`
Religion needs to stay out of politics...period.

In a sense Joan.. religions are institutions, as are businesses, trade unions, political parties, charities, environmental and conservation groups and a myriad of other organisations great and small.. political decision affects them as it does individual people, and they should have the right to voice a view publicly and to be active in favour of that view.. the issue is how much of a voice should they have and upon what terms... each should each should recognise that the electorate is king and not them, as should politicians recognise and accept that they are but the elected servants of the people, not their elected masters... and the democratic process should be tailored to accommodate that, not as now, where the aspirations of ordinary people are ignored and trampled into the ground by a few politicians in the interests of a few politicians and a large number of and powerful self serving institutions...

[æonpax]

In a sense Joan.. religions are institutions, as are businesses, trade unions, political parties, charities, environmental and conservation groups and a myriad of other organisations great and small.. political decision affects them as it does individual people, and they should have the right to voice a view publicly and to be active in favour of that view.. the issue is how much of a voice should they have and upon what terms... each should each should recognise that the electorate is king and not them, as should politicians recognise and accept that they are but the elected servants of the people, not their elected masters... and the democratic process should be tailored to accommodate that, not as now, where the aspirations of ordinary people are ignored and trampled into the ground by a few politicians in the interests of a few politicians and a large number of and powerful self serving institutions...

See post #11.

[darkeyes]

See post #11.

See post #12..

[biguy71]

I agree that religion needs to stay out of politics, but I also believe that politics needs to stay out of religion. Marriage is basically a religious institution and, as such, the government should not regulate it, or even recognize it for that matter. I recently got married and it kind of annoyed me that I had to basically pay a fee and get the government's permission to do so. They have no business involving themselves in marriage in any way, whether it is opposite sex or same sex. It's just none of their business. People have the right to live in whatever arrangement they so choose and call it whatever they want. The only issue the government should be concerned with is whom a person chooses to recognize as their next of kin, and that should be left totally up to the individual. I know a lot of people would disagree with me because they crave recognition, but I really don't care. For me, it's about freedom rather than recognition. I couldn't care less what the government, or anyone else, thinks about me and how I choose to live my life. I wish everyone felt that way. There would be a lot less bickering about nonsense. Then politicians could get on with bickering about things that are actually of consequence.

[æonpax]

I agree that religion needs to stay out of politics, but I also believe that politics needs to stay out of religion. Marriage is basically a religious institution and, as such, the government should not regulate it, or even recognize it for that matter. I recently got married and it kind of annoyed me that I had to basically pay a fee and get the government's permission to do so. They have no business involving themselves in marriage in any way, whether it is opposite sex or same sex. It's just none of their business. People have the right to live in whatever arrangement they so choose and call it whatever they want. The only issue the government should be concerned with is whom a person chooses to recognize as their next of kin, and that should be left totally up to the individual. I know a lot of people would disagree with me because they crave recognition, but I really don't care. For me, it's about freedom rather than recognition. I couldn't care less what the government, or anyone else, thinks about me and how I choose to live my life. I wish everyone felt that way. There would be a lot less bickering about nonsense. Then politicians could get on with bickering about things that are actually of consequence.

`
It depends on how you define marriage. Ceremonies conducted to recognize the union of two people, predate even the Jewish faith and had pagan origins.

Up until no less than 300 years ago, in the heterosexual world, women were considered "property" which a government could tax. This was mentioned in the "Code of Hammurabi ( 1772 BC ) Still, in many countries they are second class citizens who can be bought or traded for marriage.

Often overlooked, marriage is also a “binding legal contract” kept in force by government laws and institutions. To break a marriage, one has to go to “divorce court.” Laws to not recognize a religious ceremony alone as a marriage contract.

In regards to gays, legally recognized marriage (aside from love) has many tax and other legal benefits not enjoyed by the homosexual community simply because of archaic laws prohibiting same genders to marry.

I'm not a big fan of government intruding on people's privacy but it's sort of hard to keep government out of this issue.

[Long Duck Dong]

in a perfect world, there would be equal respect and tolerance for all.... but we live in a imperfect world of imperfect people......

religion is full of talk about respect, tolerance and love for each other as gods children..... politics is full of talk about treating people like people that matter as law abiding tax paying citizens of the country in which they reside..... and the LGBT are all about being seen as simply people that live, love and enjoy life.... and have to deal with the hypocrites, nay sayers, power huggers and....... the rest that really defy understanding....

[darkeyes]

I agree that religion needs to stay out of politics, but I also believe that politics needs to stay out of religion. Marriage is basically a religious institution and, as such, the government should not regulate it, or even recognize it for that matter. I recently got married and it kind of annoyed me that I had to basically pay a fee and get the government's permission to do so. They have no business involving themselves in marriage in any way, whether it is opposite sex or same sex. It's just none of their business. People have the right to live in whatever arrangement they so choose and call it whatever they want. The only issue the government should be concerned with is whom a person chooses to recognize as their next of kin, and that should be left totally up to the individual. I know a lot of people would disagree with me because they crave recognition, but I really don't care. For me, it's about freedom rather than recognition. I couldn't care less what the government, or anyone else, thinks about me and how I choose to live my life. I wish everyone felt that way. There would be a lot less bickering about nonsense. Then politicians could get on with bickering about things that are actually of consequence.

I understand the resentment of paying a fee to enable ourselves to get married.. I don't resent it particularly, because there are certain rights and privileges accorded to married couples,enshrined in law and some of these are financial benefits which come from being married as well as the obvious protections of each partner vis a vis inheritance, also enshrined in law. Of course governments should stay out of our private lives for the most part, yet sometimes we are glad of government interference, national or local, in our private lives.. when abused by a spouse for instance, when we are being divorced, when being ripped off by private landlords or banks.. we are often glad of interference at such times by agencies of government and by the legislative activities of government, but in general I would agree with the basic premise of non interference..

Joan's last post is correct and I don't demur in the least from it, because the issue is do we as gay, lesbian and bisexual people wish to be considered equal to the heterosexual community or not? Do we wish to continue to be second class citizens in our own lands? In my country, according to estimates, there are between 1.2 and 3 million people who are not heterosexual, in the US this would be multiplied by a factor of 6. The figures are in my opinion on the low side but no matter. If those millions were an ethnic minority we would be shouting from the rooftops at the injustice of it.. we strive for an equal society or we don't.. it may well be that we are uninterested in the institution of marriage for ourselves.. but in the interests of all those of our kind and our struggle for equality under the law, and recognition that we be allow to live as others with the same rights, privileges and obligations, it is not something we can ignore per se and nor should we...

..and marriage is not basically a religious institution at all, and has not been for over a century. It is a legal institution, regulated by law, as decided by our respective legislatures.. over half the marriages in this country are civil marriages... religious marriage is also regulated by law. The will of the people decide what marriage is, as enacted by legislation on their behalf by their elected representatives, not the will of a few powerful people in any religious institution... and in my country at least, and in the state of which it is a part, the will of the people is that same sex marriage shall be..

[biguy71]

People have mentioned the financial and legal benefits of marriage. I don't believe these should exist. That is an example of the government trying to encourage certain behavior through incentives. That's not what they should be doing. They also shouldn't discourage other behavior, such as smoking, through taxation or other penalties. Lifestyle choices should always be left up to the individual with no interference from the government as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

[darkeyes]

People have mentioned the financial and legal benefits of marriage. I don't believe these should exist. That is an example of the government trying to encourage certain behavior through incentives. That's not what they should be doing. They also shouldn't discourage other behavior, such as smoking, through taxation or other penalties. Lifestyle choices should always be left up to the individual with no interference from the government as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

In principle I agree.. there should be no advantage or disadvantage to being single or married.. there are a few financial, legal and other social advantages in this country to not being married, but most advantages such as they are exist in favour of those who are.. while important to some, probably even most, these advantages are not the most important issue to hand... what is important is that as gay, lesbian or bisexual people, we have precisely the same rights as those who are heterosexual.. whether they be financial, legal or social, and that we lose our status as, if not second class citizens, but at the very least considered less than our heterosexual friends and neighbours.. the right to marry (or not) the person of our choice no matter the gender of that choice is one important step which should be taken and without it full equality with the heterosexual world will never be attained.

[darkeyes]

`
Religion needs to stay out of politics...period.

While I take a different view of how democratic life is and should work.. this is the kind of thing which turns my stomache... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-7870135.html. 26 Bishops,.. unelected.. given preferential treatment and unfair advantage, automatic seats in the unelected upper house of our Parliament of 400 nominated unelected representatives. 26 of one denomination of one religion in one country in a state of four, all 26 with privileged constitutional protections such a no other member of that chamber has.. this, as with the fact that the House of which they are members is unelected, is an affront, and prevents my country from being considered a proper democratic state..

[Long Duck Dong]

In principle I agree.. there should be no advantage or disadvantage to being single or married.. there are a few financial, legal and other social advantages in this country to not being married, but most advantages such as they are exist in favour of those who are.. while important to some, probably even most, these advantages are not the most important issue to hand... what is important is that as gay, lesbian or bisexual people, we have precisely the same rights as those who are heterosexual.. whether they be financial, legal or social, and that we lose our status as, if not second class citizens, but at the very least considered less than our heterosexual friends and neighbours.. the right to marry (or not) the person of our choice no matter the gender of that choice is one important step which should be taken and without it full equality with the heterosexual world will never be attained.

you do not want to live in NZ then..... you would find that any solo parent with kids, is more likely to receive more in her hand than you would as a married person with children.....

one lady I know, gets more money a week, than my stepfather and mother ( married ) myself and my housemate get, combined.... she is in a low rent house with 2 children...and last I heard, she was getting more than a married couple working full time with 1 children, in their own house

nz has a culture that is seriously going badly wrong,.... the person regarded to be best off under NZ's tax and benefits system, is a single female with 3 children, on a benefit.... they are placed highest on the housing list and qualify for the most benefits / subsidies and in simple terms, as long as they keep having children, the government and the taxpayer will support them for the rest of their lives....

the people rated the worst off in NZ, are working class families with married parents in their own home

[darkeyes]

you do not want to live in NZ then..... you would find that any solo parent with kids, is more likely to receive more in her hand than you would as a married person with children.....

one lady I know, gets more money a week, than my stepfather and mother ( married ) myself and my housemate get, combined.... she is in a low rent house with 2 children...and last I heard, she was getting more than a married couple working full time with 1 children, in their own house

nz has a culture that is seriously going badly wrong,.... the person regarded to be best off under NZ's tax and benefits system, is a single female with 3 children, on a benefit.... they are placed highest on the housing list and qualify for the most benefits / subsidies and in simple terms, as long as they keep having children, the government and the taxpayer will support them for the rest of their lives....

the people rated the worst off in NZ, are working class families with married parents in their own home

We hear of and read stories like that all the time, Duckie.. sometimes, they are even true.. what we hear and what we know aren't necessarily the same as what is...there are those who milk, and even abuse a system whatever that system is and however foolproof, but 99% cant or where they can, don't. As such it isn't really much to do with the thread so I won't enter into a debate about your or our benefits system.. that's a wholly different issue and a debate which every society should have.. but compared to the economic abuse carried out by the wealthy and by the great corporations, I think I can live with those at the arse end of society doing what they can and getting what they can to survive and even thrive... and thriving is not something many at that arse end do...

[Gearbox]

It's no different in the UK LDD.
I'm currently looking for work with a Job Seekers agency. I was told that I'll get help from an advisor who'll tell me if I'll be better or worse off by taking a particular job (IF there were any to take).
I'm penalised for being healthy, but supported for being single.lol
My daughter doesn't live with me, so I'm regarded as childless. Even though I see her often, provide meals, cloths etc etc.
Apparently, I can not afford to have a partner living with me (married or not). Or anybody living with me, apart from my daughter. I will enquire Friday if I can adopt some kids, so we can get a swimming pool fitted in the garden.

[æonpax]

People have mentioned the financial and legal benefits of marriage. I don't believe these should exist. That is an example of the government trying to encourage certain behavior through incentives. That's not what they should be doing. They also shouldn't discourage other behavior, such as smoking, through taxation or other penalties. Lifestyle choices should always be left up to the individual with no interference from the government as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

Excellent point. Throughout history and across all cultural barriers; governments, nations, tribes and clans have recognized the importance of a formal familial structure as a core foundation of an organized society. That includes the concept of marriage. From the Roman Empire (whence came the word “family” and “marriage”) to the Xia dynasty in China, to Babylonia, it covers all of our specie.

Fact is, the institution of the nuclear family predates any governmental system, and is universally acknowledged as worthy of respect and protection. Governments have come to recognize that intact families are more likely to make good citizens and that marriage creates economically stable units able to contribute more in taxes, and also reduces the likelihood that the state will have to intervene through expensive crime control or social services programs.

If you’ve ever read the book, “Brave New World”, you can see the antithesis of a society without marriage or family. Idyllic but dystopian, it reflects a world which shows that in order for a utopian society to achieve a state of stability, a loss of individuality, and the manipulation of the basic human genomes must occur in order for such a utopian state to be achieved.

I guess the penalty for a structured and civilized society is to allow for some liberties to be traded off for a greater utilitarian purpose. Taxes have always been around and so also is the human need for companionship…heterosexual and homosexual, which includes the institution of marriage for both.

[Long Duck Dong]

We hear of and read stories like that all the time, Duckie.. sometimes, they are even true.. what we hear and what we know aren't necessarily the same as what is...there are those who milk, and even abuse a system whatever that system is and however foolproof, but 99% cant or where they can, don't. As such it isn't really much to do with the thread so I won't enter into a debate about your or our benefits system.. that's a wholly different issue and a debate which every society should have.. but compared to the economic abuse carried out by the wealthy and by the great corporations, I think I can live with those at the arse end of society doing what they can and getting what they can to survive and even thrive... and thriving is not something many at that arse end do...

think about it..... what advantage would there be to have equal marriage rights for all in NZ,.... if most marriages struggle to survive simply cos of financing and making ends meet cos of a system that is geared up towards single people, not married people

the nz marriage rate is falling, in NZ... and there are more and more people that feel that the only reason that LGBT people actually got considered for things like the civil union/marriage, is to prop the numbers up.... and make the country look good.... the marriage rate is 22% lower than it was in 1971, and the average marriage rate in nz, is 16.2%, its estimated that 57% of NZ'ers will never get married

the LGBT civil union rate is between 1.2 and 1.5 percent of all unions and marriages in NZ... and part of the reason is that the LGBT realised that being in a union,, meant a lot more hardship and struggling to make ends meet than if they remained in a relationship and did not get into a union

so its not a debate about benefit systems, its more a statement about a country where marriage and civil union are not the utopia that many hoped it would be......and the idea that if the marriage / civil union ends, you have to be separated for 2 years in order to file to end the marriage / civil union so you can move on with your life....

[darkeyes]

think about it..... what advantage would there be to have equal marriage rights for all in NZ,.... if most marriages struggle to survive simply cos of financing and making ends meet cos of a system that is geared up towards single people, not married people

the nz marriage rate is falling, in NZ... and there are more and more people that feel that the only reason that LGBT people actually got considered for things like the civil union/marriage, is to prop the numbers up.... and make the country look good.... the marriage rate is 22% lower than it was in 1971, and the average marriage rate in nz, is 16.2%, its estimated that 57% of NZ'ers will never get married

the LGBT civil union rate is between 1.2 and 1.5 percent of all unions and marriages in NZ... and part of the reason is that the LGBT realised that being in a union,, meant a lot more hardship and struggling to make ends meet than if they remained in a relationship and did not get into a union

so its not a debate about benefit systems, its more a statement about a country where marriage and civil union are not the utopia that many hoped it would be......and the idea that if the marriage / civil union ends, you have to be separated for 2 years in order to file to end the marriage / civil union so you can move on with your life....

It isn't whether or not it is an advantage..it should not be an advantage or a disadvantage.. marriage is not a utopia for ne 1.. but it exists, and whether or not the rate of people marrying falls or not isn't actually relevant.. marriage is a symbol of two people committing their lives to one another and it is not going to go away soon.. as with any human institution it should be available to all who wish it because it is important to them for whatever reason... and it should be available to all to marry the person of their choice, not be proscribed from doing so with any person because of prejudice or gender... that marriages end isn't pertinent however quickly or otherwise they fail.. human beings fail at many things including love and including marriage.. but even to many of those who have failed... it remains an institution which is important to them..

.. on a lighter note... sad in its own way.. http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...internalSearch

[Long Duck Dong]

I agree fran, but being in love, doesn't pay the bills..... and that is what many people are finding.....

if DD and I were sharing a house as single people, we would get about $600 a week, but as a married couple we would get $312, the rent is $220 a week..... if DD was a solo mother with 2 kids, she would get close to $800 a week....

I am not saying that marriage should be a advantage, but that married people have to live too.. and that is why a lot of people are seeing that marriage is not cost effective, they get penalized for being married, when there should be no penalties at all, and that is part of why people are *cheating the system * they are not doing it cos they are criminals, they just want to live together and be able to live on the income they get.......

imagine you and kate being together for 30 odd years, you both retire then find that your combined retirement income is not enuf to pay the bills and buy food, so you get told that you are better off to get a divorce and live separately...... and yes that has happened to some people....

what good is giving people the ability and right to marry, if they will not have the means to sustain the marriage, pay the bills and bring up the kids

[darkeyes]

I agree fran, but being in love, doesn't pay the bills..... and that is what many people are finding.....

if DD and I were sharing a house as single people, we would get about $600 a week, but as a married couple we would get $312, the rent is $220 a week..... if DD was a solo mother with 2 kids, she would get close to $800 a week....

I am not saying that marriage should be a advantage, but that married people have to live too.. and that is why a lot of people are seeing that marriage is not cost effective, they get penalized for being married, when there should be no penalties at all, and that is part of why people are *cheating the system * they are not doing it cos they are criminals, they just want to live together and be able to live on the income they get.......

imagine you and kate being together for 30 odd years, you both retire then find that your combined retirement income is not enuf to pay the bills and buy food, so you get told that you are better off to get a divorce and live separately...... and yes that has happened to some people....

what good is giving people the ability and right to marry, if they will not have the means to sustain the marriage, pay the bills and bring up the kids

Don't disagree.. but even now most peeps do have the ability 2 pay the bills in this country at least... although many struggle and it's harder than it was.. those that don't are both those who are married and not married..and to twist it round from the divorce angle, some who would not otherwise marry.. ...marry for the advantages that being married gains.. . and it is not unknown for unmarried couples to separate because of the economic disadvantages of living together and in no way an argument against marriage.. against unfairness, inequality certainly..against how our societies work sure... but not against marriage, and indeed not for it either...

[12voltman59]

You do have to hand it to her to come out so clearly in support of same sex marriage because with many in her fan base----that she has done so is bound to lead to some negative "blow back" for her----the Southern Baptist Convention just came out stating that they are totally opposed to any moves to grant "special rights" to gays and lesbians seeking same sex marriage----holding that their search for such rights are not equal to things like blacks seeking their civil rights and such and of course--holding to the concept that marriage is a contract between God and one woman and one man and anything else is bad.

Heck--look at what happened to the careers of the Dixie Chicks after what they said about Bush in the early days post 9/11---it in effect took them out--and it would not be surprising that with the way that her many of her fans are on this subject--and many of the companies that own country stations like Clear Channel Communications---do tend to be pretty conservative---she might become hard pressed to make the playlists of many country stations now that she has come out with this position--modern Nashville does not cotton to anyone who goes against their status quo views on things and you can be sure that they would never allow songs about a love between two men or two women to ever be recorded or played on stations playing the narrow-casting Nashville style music.

I would suggest to her---get an edge to her music and take it away from the "pop goes the (Nashville-style) country" music so she can be considered a part of "outlaw country" music and be played on stations like Sirius/XM's "Outlaw Country" and WDVX-FM--- stations that don't mind that artists are not mindless, flag waving, chest beating "patriots" and such stuff.

Both of these stations regularly play music by Mary Gautheir (pronounced GO-SHAY) who is an out and proud lesbian and is one wonderfully talented musician but an ARTIST whose music---hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting played on a Top Hits Country Station!!!