SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a red square with two horizontal pink lines. I just started seeing people switching to it all over the place today. What's it mean? I know I'm out of it, so humor me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeninok Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It is people letting it be known they support equal rights. The SCOTUS is dealing with Prop 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Equality in gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Oh, OK. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's the HRC's symbol. Changed red to show support this week. http://humanrightscampaign.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a political statement, and if you happen to be a supporter of traditional marriage, the Family Research Council has come out with a counter-meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeninok Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a political statement, and if you happen to be a supporter of traditional marriage, the Family Research Council has come out with a counter-meme. Just a quick statement before I duck to dodge incoming kilts and cupcakes...... Most of us who support marriage equality do strongly support the idea of a traditional family as well. We find marriage to be such a valuable institution in so many ways that we are willing to stand up, stomp our feet, wave signs, march, petition, and more. Simply be cause we do support families....we just don't think it matters one whit about the bits and pieces under someones clothes. It has nothing to do with breaking down an honored tradition, but rather seeing its value so strongly that we understand why it is so important that non-heteronormative couples have the right to partake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a political statement, and if you happen to be a supporter of traditional marriage, the Family Research Council has come out with a counter-meme. Is someone against men and women getting married? Unless someone is against men and women getting married, that image makes no sense as a political statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenaj Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Is someone against men and women getting married? Unless someone is against men and women getting married, that image makes no sense as a political statement. It's a way to show your opinion on your facebook page. An opposite reaction to the equal sign. Not too hard to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a way to show your opinion on your facebook page. An opposite reaction to the equal sign. Not too hard to comprehend. Except, it is not the opposite. That is my point. As a political statement it makes no sense. I am for marriage equality. I am a woman married to a man that I adore, so I <3 hetero marriage too. Loving hetero marriage doesn't say anything about marriage equality one way or the other, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Well, I'm for having it resolved one way or the other so we can move on. (Says the never-married, and happy with it, mom of 2.) I doubt there will ever be a push for equality for single moms in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Trying to stay within forum guidelines here, but if I go around declaring a 4-sided polygon a "triangle", that does not change it from a quadrilateral into a triangle. It's still a quadrilateral, and not a triangle. Is wanting accurate terminology to remain accurate,"hateful"? I don't see it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I really wish that the term "marriage" would be a description of a religious sacrament of sorts and that a "civil union" would become the norm for all the rest of us that are not religious, regardless of the make up of our union (man/woman, woman/woman, man/man). Any federal, state and private benefits that are given to married folks could be offered to "civil union" folks as well. I'd be okay with being in a civil union. It would reflect my agnostic POV and I don't think my family is any less of a family because of this identifier. Just my .02 this morning. BTW, I didn't put any image on my FB, because I don't think defining "marriage" is the role of the SCOTUS. K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Well, I'm for having it resolved one way or the other so we can move on. (Says the never-married, and happy with it, mom of 2.) I doubt there will ever be a push for equality for single moms in my lifetime. Man, I stink at trying to attach pics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkd Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Crimsonwife, The point of the current supreme court cases is that there isn't a currently accepted national legal definition of marriage. Your view within your religious or personal traditions is not the point of this national conversation regarding equal rights. Those traditions and your marital choices will be unaffected by this supreme court decision. To return to your comparison, declaring hatred and bigotry a religious right does not change it from bigotry and hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Trying to stay within forum guidelines here, but if I go around declaring a 4-sided polygon a "triangle", that does not change it from a quadrilateral into a triangle. It's still a quadrilateral, and not a triangle. Is wanting accurate terminology to remain accurate,"hateful"? I don't see it that way. Do you have an accurate definition of the word marriage that applies unchanging throughout time and different cultures? Because the definition of marriage has changed a lot in even the last century, let alone all of history, and the US represents a lot of different cultures.... And if enough people got together and decided to change the definition of triangle, it could be done. Many, probably most, words in the English language have change definition at some point. Language evolves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Trying to stay within forum guidelines here, but if I go around declaring a 4-sided polygon a "triangle", that does not change it from a quadrilateral into a triangle. It's still a quadrilateral, and not a triangle. Is wanting accurate terminology to remain accurate,"hateful"? I don't see it that way. When terminology based on religious beliefs creates laws that infringe on the rights of others, yes, it is hateful (and also unconstitutional, IMO, as religious beliefs should not be a part of legislation or the constitution). No one is trying to change the definition of marriage for you (that would also be hateful). Does anyone, including conservative Christians, want religion making the laws and/or changing the constitution? Think about that. No matter your beliefs (or lack thereof), separation of church and state means freedom to live your religion in any way you see fit. I think we can all agree that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnIslandGirl Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Posted by a dear friend who is fighting for equality for all, "The fact that these cases have even made it to the Supreme Court is a disgrace to our country. We are a nation supposedly founded on individual liberty. If you do not support equality for all, you are not American. And to everyone changing their profile pictures today, think about what that symbol means. It doesn't mean supporting gay marriage March 26th because it's fashionable. It means living your life accepting those that are different from you. Every day. Regardless of color, orientation, disability, creed, etc. " I am proud to have him as my friend and fellow American! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I really wish that the term "marriage" would be a description of a religious sacrament of sorts and that a "civil union" would become the norm for all the rest of us that are not religious, regardless of the make up of our union (man/woman, woman/woman, man/man). Any federal, state and private benefits that are given to married folks could be offered to "civil union" folks as well. Marraige is an ancient social contruct that existed long before any organized religion. I think the real disingenuity in the whole debate lies in the attempt to misappropriate the term "marraige" to mean a narrowly defined religious construct - a definition, which if we look closely, we will find is not even supported by many major world religions because they will often have examples of marriages in their holy books and stories that do not fit this narrow criteria. So no, I do not think marriage is a description of a religious sacrament. And I do think people without religion can be married as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a political statement, and if you happen to be a supporter of traditional marriage, the Family Research Council has come out with a counter-meme. What's up with the lower-case "i"? Politics aside, from a graphic design point of view, the FRC's graphic isn't ideal, is it? When you make it smaller, as happens with FB pics, it's not very clear. And as Mrs. Mungo pointed out, people's views on traditional marriage (as pictured in the graphic) don't predict their views on same-sex marriage. It seems like people who <3 same-sex marriage would also <3 traditional marriage, yes? So the message, from a purely artistic point of view, is a bit muddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinlunachick Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a political statement, and if you happen to be a supporter of traditional marriage, the Family Research Council has come out with a counter-meme. That could easily be misinterpreted to mean that one likes men AND women (ie, bisexual). :laugh: I think it's a counter-meme FAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That could easily be misinterpreted to mean that one likes men AND women (ie, bisexual). :laugh: I think it's a counter-meme FAIL. That was actually my first reaction before I read the accompanying post. Bisexual and/or polyamorous. It's really a pretty weak counter-meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Except, it is not the opposite. That is my point. As a political statement it makes no sense. I am for marriage equality. I am a woman married to a man that I adore, so I <3 hetero marriage too. Loving hetero marriage doesn't say anything about marriage equality one way or the other, IMO. I certainly hope not! After all, it took a man and a woman to produce each one of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 LOL AdventureMoms. My thought was it was men and women who like to share restrooms. Those look like the restroom figures. Yeah, I'm married to a guy, but some days it might be nice to have a wife, too, you know? Lol Much love for the family restroom! Ok ok I'm 2 weeks or less from giving birth here, I'm gonna pee my pants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Marraige is an ancient social contruct that existed long before any organized religion. I think the real disingenuity in the whole debate lies in the attempt to misappropriate the term "marraige" to mean a narrowly defined religious construct - a definition, which if we look closely, we will find is not even supported by many major world religions because they will often have examples of marriages in their holy books and stories that do not fit this narrow criteria. So no, I do not think marriage is a description of a religious sacrament. And I do think people without religion can be married as well. Then what, exactly, is the definition of marriage? Are we ready to accept a definition of marriage that could include polygamy, or marriage of siblings, a parent and child, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbecueMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 LOL AdventureMoms. My thought was it was men and women who like to share restrooms. Those look like the restroom figures. Or, "I now pronounce you husband and Batman. You may now kiss the caped crusader." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It is people letting it be known they support equal rights. The SCOTUS is dealing with Prop 8. Oral arguments for California's Prop 8 (changing the CA constitution to ban same-sex marriage) were yesterday. Today is oral arguments for Edie Windsor's case against part of the Defense of Marriage Act. Edie was legally married (she lives in New York), and is arguing that the federal government should recognize that marriage, specifically as pertains to inheritance and tax law. Section 3 of DOMA says that "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Edie had to pay a hefty inheritance tax when her spouse died, which she would not have had to pay had the federal government recognized her marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I just don't see how it hurts traditional marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry. It's not like I'll be less married if my two male friends get married. IMO, divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than gays being allowed to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinlunachick Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Then what, exactly, is the definition of marriage? Are we ready to accept a definition of marriage that could include polygamy, or marriage of siblings, a parent and child, etc? I'm fine with religious institutions putting their own restrictions on marriage ceremonies and recognitions. However, I think it would do us all much good to step back and ponder what exactly is the government's role in defining marriage anyway? In the end, it's a civil contract, and we don't restrict participation in those beyond legal age and capacity to consent, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Actually I'm not against polygamy among consenting adults. The other examples are ridiculous. Polygamy could get tricky, though. Would a company be required to give spousal benefits to all 6 of a guy's wives? (or a girl's husbands... or...... you get my point.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Polygamy could get tricky, though. Would a company be required to give spousal benefits to all 6 of a guy's wives? (or a girl's husbands... or...... you get my point.) Why not? Don't you pay for spousal benefits, like insurance and medical? They worker would just have to pay more for each spouse. What other benefits are there that would be affected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 What does the red one with the pink cross mean? It says "all are welcome at the foot of the cross." I know it is a Christian one, but is it in support of gay marriage or just a "come to Jesus" symbol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinlunachick Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 More spouses = more bodies in the pool, right? Lower premiums for everybody!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Polygamy could get tricky, though. Would a company be required to give spousal benefits to all 6 of a guy's wives? (or a girl's husbands... or...... you get my point.) I do think a "one per" rule in such cases would be reasonable. I don't think polygamy should be outlawed, but claiming financial benefits for an unlimited number of people is unreasonable. But I don't have a problem with letting everyone claim one person to receive spousal benefits for, even if that person is a relative or whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Then what, exactly, is the definition of marriage? Are we ready to accept a definition of marriage that could include polygamy, or marriage of siblings, a parent and child, etc? Justice Sotomayer asked the same thing yesterday, of Ted Olson (the conservative but pro-same-sex marriage lawyer) (As a side note, he lost his wife Barbara on 9/11; she was in the Pentagon plane.): JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left? MR. OLSON: Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status. It's selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases, you're picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom that you've said is fundamental, important and vital in this society, and it has status and stature, as you pointed out in the VMI case. There's a -- there's a different -Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I ♥ Sotomayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Actually I'm not against polygamy among consenting adults. The other examples are ridiculous. Are they?? Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor brought up these examples yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I've never heard of an employer refusing to insure a family because they have 10 kids. And if they did, many people would probably be screaming about it. How is that not above and beyond the typical if we are going to go that direction with this discussion? KWIM? Good point. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Polygamy could get tricky, though. Would a company be required to give spousal benefits to all 6 of a guy's wives? (or a girl's husbands... or...... you get my point.) Some religious organizations have dealt with assorted benefits issues by allowing each employee to assign their spousal-type benefits to one other person, who might be their spouse, but who doesn't have to be. Could be their significant other or their mom or whatever. That way the organization doesn't get their hands dirty with the marriage/cohabitation issues but also doesn't leave their employee's families without health care (which would go against their mission regarding taking care of others, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Are they?? Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor brought up these examples yesterday. Yes, she brought them up, because it's a common argument. And that's her job--to look at all angles. It's still a ridiculous argument. The key words here are 'consenting adults.' Make that two consenting adults, if you need to. No one is arguing in favor of child brides or your weird uncle getting to marry his dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 With regards to insurance, IMO that shouldn't even be tied to an employer. It should be available to all whether or not one's employer offers it. Not all employers offer spousal benefits. Not all employers offer benefits of any kind. That's really an entirely different discussion though. ITA. Yes --- NOT trying to start another debate, but when I posted the question I was thinking specifically about the retired teacher who sits next to me in band (and talks a lot!) who was describing the choice he had to make to pay just a little bit more so that his wife would receive a certain amount of his pension benefits as long as she lived. That's my tax money, paying for someone who never actually worked in the school, to get a pension potentially for a long time. (they just turned 60, by the way, and he is retired.) My husband, however, will never have a pension, even though he works at a huge multinational company. It made me wonder about a teacher with 3 wives paying just a little bit extra to get unlimited spousal pension benefits and how much that would cost. A LOT. But all this is just my brain four steps ahead, because pretty soon 'pension' will be an antiquated notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Yes, she brought them up, because it's a common argument. And that's her job--to look at all angles. It's still a ridiculous argument. The key words here are 'consenting adults.' Make that two consenting adults, if you need to. No one is arguing in favor of child brides or your weird uncle getting to marry his dog. Maybe not today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Maybe not today... Look at all the fuss over two dudes getting married today. If it's taking this much of a push to get same-sex marriage recognized, you don't have to worry. That slippery slope ain't all that slippery--those things aren't gonna happen in our lifetimes. Do you really see the same type of public outcry necessary to start a movement of this magnitude happening over, say, allowing an adult to marry a 12-year old? No. 'cause it isn't going to happen. We're talking about two consenting adults, in love, wanting the same basic rights as any man and woman. Nothing weird or scary about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I literally laughed out loud! Poor Kitty will be so disappointed. She has been eying me longingly for quite some time now. Aw, kitty!! Ok, maybe one day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Look at all the fuss over two dudes getting married today. If it's taking this much of a push to get same-sex marriage recognized, you don't have to worry. That slippery slope ain't all that slippery--those things aren't gonna happen in our lifetimes. Do you really see the same type of public outcry necessary to start a movement of this magnitude happening over, say, allowing an adult to marry a 12-year old? No. 'cause it isn't going to happen. We're talking about two consenting adults, in love, wanting the same basic rights as any man and woman. Nothing weird or scary about it. Well, child marriage would be traditional, at least! Plus 14-17 year olds are allowed to marry in many states with parental consent. And those are full marriages with full federal benefits. So a pair of children too young to consent for themselves can marry, but two mature adults? Clearly that would destroy the sacred institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Well, child marriage would be traditional, at least! Plus 14-17 year olds are allowed to marry in many states with parental consent. And those are full marriages with full federal benefits. So a pair of children too young to consent for themselves can marry, but two mature adults? Clearly that would destroy the sacred institution. Lol. Clearly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Then what, exactly, is the definition of marriage? Are we ready to accept a definition of marriage that could include polygamy, or marriage of siblings, a parent and child, etc? Polygamy, polyandry, marriage among siblings - all were valid at some point in history. Were those not marriages? Societal ideas of marriage have evolved and will continue to do so. To say that the term "marriage" can only be correctly used to define the union of one man and one woman, and everything else must be defined under the term "civil union" is patently false and dishonest. IMO, such an argument is only being made to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance people feel about discriminating against gays viz "We are not against equal rights. We do not mind civil unions. We just want to protect traditional marriage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Some religious organizations have dealt with assorted benefits issues by allowing each employee to assign their spousal-type benefits to one other person, who might be their spouse, but who doesn't have to be. Could be their significant other or their mom or whatever. That way the organization doesn't get their hands dirty with the marriage/cohabitation issues but also doesn't leave their employee's families without health care (which would go against their mission regarding taking care of others, etc.) Personally, I wish there were a better legal option for something like this. Part of the problem right now is that nothing but marriage confers special legal status. Marriage equality doesn't help my life-long bachelor uncles take care of each other, but I think there should be a legal way for them to do so. Ed because I cannot type on my phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Polygamy, polyandry, marriage among siblings - all were valid at some point in history. Surely most here know about the ancient Egyptian royalty, and let us not even discuss the Romans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I literally laughed out loud! Poor Kitty will be so disappointed. She has been eying me longingly for quite some time now. Next time I want to marry a time lord. :D It doesn't take a huge leap back in history to see things many thought were fine that are now illegal. Slavery for one, there is a long history of slavery in this world. Should we coin the phrase "traditional slavery" and try and bring it back. I could use some household help. :thumbdown: Even in the early colonial days you see men and women getting remarried after a spouse dies. For love? Maybe. To procreate? maybe. Maybe because life was hard and it took 2 adults to do everything needed for a household. My own genealogy is full of men and women who had multiple marriages even after having several children. I am for equality in marriage. I hope it is a marriage between two people who love and adore each other, regardless of gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts