Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!

RCMAC said:

Oh, and TimberRider, puh-leeze, where is your head? I'm going to to out on a limb here and suggest that Scott and Eric are not so interested in Disney.

They might enjoy a Fairy Tale Wedding though, with a coach ride in Cinderella's coach to the front of Cinderella Castle.

Regulus said:

Go find yourself a Private Hall and a Government Official. Leave the Churches to Christians (Who I believe will "Disappear") Soon and the Amusement Parks to Families.

PS. When us Christians Vanish, be afraid, be VERY AFRAID!

I get extremely offended when someone claims that a gay couple should not allowed to have the same kind of Christian wedding that straight people are entitled to. Isn't a Christian wedding better than just going to the courthouse, no matter who is getting married?

I get extremely offended when so-called Christians tell me that gays can not be Christians. Encouraging any group to not want to be associated with your religion is moronic.

I also get extremely offended when people assume that gays shouldn't have a family. Wouldn't a family headed by two loving same-sex partners be much better than a single-parent, and/or divorced family? I've seen some pretty dysfunctional families at an amusement park, and I have seen some amazingly loving same-sex parents at the parks as well.

I realized about a decade ago that I was living a really unhappy life mostly because of bigots, many of whom are Christians, keeping me down and making me feel like a piece of garbage. I still haven't completely found my way out of this funk, but I am making progress. I have only myself to blame for letting them in, where their hatred was most powerful. I will emerge from this a much better person than any of those who wish me not to exist.

LostKause said:

I get extremely offended when someone claims that a gay couple should not allowed to have the same kind of Christian wedding that straight people are entitled to. Isn't a Christian wedding better than just going to the courthouse, no matter who is getting married?

I kind of thought he was kidding because of how stupid the post would be if taken seriously.

Also, I didn't think extreme evangelicals were allowed to ride roller coasters because they're clearly evil.

@etrainimac

I am a Canadian CP enthusiast, and I absolutely understand how frustrating and disappointing this situation must be for you.

It is legal for my boyfriend and I to marry here in Canada, which is an incredible feeling. However, our dream is to have the biggest, gaudiest, craziest wedding in Las Vegas that we possibly can. Last summer, we spent a good deal of time making arrangements to have a commitment ceremony at several chapels. Not one single chapel in "sin city" would accommodate us once they learned that it was two men. The reason was that it was against 'state law' to perform same sex ceremonies. We became progressively more and more frustrating, especially since we face no such restrictions here. We eventually decided to wait in hopes of Nevada changing its laws, and we're still looking forward to the day we can even have some sort of ceremony performed there.

If its your dream to be married at CP, don't give up on it. If it doesn't happen now, it may become possible within a few years. I'd hate to see you miss out on the perfect moment and settle for something less than magical.

I'm going to tweet Tony and the park for you to make my voice heard.

Best of luck.

James Whitmore said:

So now I find it interesting that they are holding this event and therefore forcing the park to make a stand on the issue.

I'm not sure how obeying state law equates to them taking a stand on the issue. I'm 100% in support of gay marriage, but the beef here should be with Columbus (and DC), not with the park for being shoehorned by laws that were enacted by backwards thinking idiots.

I agree. This isn't a CP issue; it's an issue with the laws of Ohio. I'm sure if gay marriage were allowed under the law then CP would have no problem including gay couples in the event.

Good luck to you, Eric.

Regulus said:

PS. When us Christians Vanish, be afraid, be VERY AFRAID!

Yeah, it would be pretty damn terrifying if, for example, alcohol were available for purchase on a Sunday or something.

Shiver.

Regulus said:
Go find yourself a Private Hall and a Government Official. Leave the Churches to Christians (Who I believe will "Disappear") Soon and the Amusement Parks to Families.

PS. When us Christians Vanish, be afraid, be VERY AFRAID!

Is this real?

It's not Jesus that's the problem. It's conservatives taking their narrow view of the world and deciding that's the way God and Jesus wanted things, so they have to be enshrined into law. If Jesus were to stand in front of a large group of conservative Christians and talk to them with the same words of forgiveness and love he used in his life 2000 years ago, they would either dismiss him as a pansy hippy liberal or kill him again.

But as Martin Luther King Jr said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." We just have to win more people over to the fact that being LGBTQ is not a choice, just as being attracted to certain physical features in people of the opposite gender is not a choice. I know waiting sucks, but I believe in the next few years,thanks to DOMA being chiseled away at, states won't be able to have a double standard, and ALL states will legalize marriage between any 2 consenting adults not closely related to each other.

Note: This in no way betrays my viewpoint on the subject, which isn't relevant to this particular point.

Whether or not the attraction is a choice is not relevant to whether or not it's moral. I am attracted to killing people who wrong me, but it's still immoral to do it.

And on that note, since it's been brought up here, Religion should never bow to the masses. I've see it done often. If you disagree with a particular moral teaching of a religion, it's not the duty of the religion (or it's authorities) to cowtow to you as an individual or to the masses. It's your responsibility to make your own choices on what morals you want to subscribe to.

Sometimes that means making a change on your own behalf. Why people cry that the religion they belong to no longer caters to their 'needs' or wishes is beyond me. Move on and let go.

Edit: IMO, Marriage should never have become 'civilized' (for lack of a better word). Marriage was a religious institution, and government has no business telling people who they can assign their rights to.

I'm not going to talk anymore about the religious stuff here, because I have always been pretty private about it. I do, however, want to share this website with anyone who may be interested. It has been very helpful to me over the last few years.

I'm partial to this one.

Tekwardo said:

And on that note, since it's been brought up here, Religion should never bow to the masses. I've see it done often. If you disagree with a particular moral teaching of a religion, it's not the duty of the religion (or it's authorities) to cowtow to you as an individual or to the masses. It's your responsibility to make your own choices on what morals you want to subscribe to.

Sometimes that means making a change on your own behalf. Why people cry that the religion they belong to no longer caters to their 'needs' or wishes is beyond me. Move on and let go.

Edit: IMO, Marriage should never have become 'civilized' (for lack of a better word). Marriage was a religious institution, and government has no business telling people who they can assign their rights to.

Never heard it put better, Clint.

I don't see where "the state" should place any value whatsoever on a religious ceremony. If gay couples want to enter a legally-binding marriage contract, that harms no one. There are 1600+ regulations that harmed gay people by not allowing them to get "married." Call it whatever you want (civil unions for all!) - everyone should have the SAME set of rights...

edit: "Human rights" means all humans - regardless of height, weight, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientiation....what-EVER!

Thanks Rob.

I don't see where "the state" should place any value whatsoever on a religious ceremony.

This. Regardless of where you stand on the moral aspects of someone being in a committed relationship with someone of the same sex, several people, etc., the government should not be involved.

If I want to name someone my power of atty, beneficiary, etc., for whatever reason, the Government shouldn't have any say so on who I can and can't, unless there is a risk that that person is going to abuse me, take advantage of me, endanger me, or neglect me.

I wrote a lot more, but it got off on another tangent dealing with Powers of Attorney and such, so I'll leave it at that. :)

The contract of marriage was not a religious contract originally. It was a property transfer contract from a woman's father to her husband. Religion came in and made it about the relationship between the man and woman and then about the family bond. Modern marriage is about inheritance and medical decision rights, not just that commitment two people make to live a life together.

Tekwardo, it's not about the government making decisions. I am in a state that doesn't recognize the relationship I have with my boyfriend. If anything happens to either of us, the other doesn't have a say over what the FAMILY of the sick/dead one says.

The park would not be breaking any laws by including same-sex partners in the wedding ceremony.

Gay couples get married every day in Ohio. In churches, beaches, parks, etc...

The wedding ceremony, with a priest, or a zombie, is meaningless from a legal standpoint. It's a symbolic ceremony, and that is all. I could "marry you" in my backyard, and it would mean just as much. What many couples don't realize is just how unemotional and sterile getting legally married actually is. You pay a fee, sign the paperwork, and get a license.

Cedar Point could certainly include same-sex partners in this wedding ceremony. The only difference is that the state of Ohio would then choose to legally recognize (at the courthouse) the heterosexual partners by giving them a license, and would then legally discriminate against the same-sex partners by refusing to distribute said licenses.

Yeah, with all due respect and not to take this off the important topic at hand:

My marriage is a legal agreement that has nothing to do with religion. The only incentives we had to actually marry were all legal ones. (like these guys above me are pointing out)

God has nothing to do with my marriage. (in fact, if he existed, he probably would have tried to stop such an unholy union) Religion has even less than nothing to do with it.

^^Which is why you have a will and legal paperwork to back up your legal wishes. If you as a gay couple don't put in the work to make sure that your wishes are met, then the state is going to do what it pleases based on the basic laws set up.

As an adult, you can set up who you do and do not wish to represent you when you can't make decisions for yourself. If you don't do this and find yourself in a situation where your signifigant other or yourself is unable to speak for yourself, then it goes to whoever the state defaults to. I hear the complaints all the time that families come in and take over, but they can't do that if you have legal paperwork stating who your power of attorney or legal representative is. If a heterosexual couple that isn't married is in the same situation, they face the same problems.

And marriage began as a moral means to an end. That there were contracts involved between people, again, means nothing, as it was not a civil institution. Governments shouldn't have control over licensure of a marriage. It's a religious institution that predates written history.

Edit: Gonch and OhioState hit the nail on the head.