Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!
Even with a will, my boyfriend's sister is not a very nice person, and if she were in a particularly greedy mood I wouldn't put it past her to CONTEST something in a will if she WANTED IT. Being his sister, the fact that we are not LEGALLY married, the courts COULD side with her.
Tekwardo, you just stated my argument with your line "a heterosexual couple who arent' married face the same problems." That is OUR ARGUMENT. We have to fight fights that we wouldn't if we were allowed to be LEGALLY MARRIED.
Sorry for my double edit, but Tekwardo you're starting to annoy me here. If a HETEROSEXUAL couple is married, certain rights are AUTOMATIC, no extra legal contracts and paperwork necessary.
StLCPfan said:
Even with a will, my boyfriend's sister is not a very nice person, and if she were in a particularly greedy mood I wouldn't put it past her to CONTEST something in a will if she WANTED IT. Being his sister, the fact that we are not LEGALLY married, the courts COULD side with her.
And she could do that if you were dating her sister, and the court could side with you either way. That's life. I'm not saying it's fair.
Tekwardo, you just stated my argument with your line "a heterosexual couple who arent' married face the same problems." That is OUR ARGUMENT. We have to fight fights that we wouldn't if we were allowed to be LEGALLY MARRIED.
And I agree that governments should stay out of who has rights and who can and can't be recognized in a legal relationship.
Sorry for my double edit, but Tekwardo you're starting to annoy me here.
Put your big boy pants on and learn a thing or two.
If a HETEROSEXUAL couple is married, certain rights are AUTOMATIC, no extra legal contracts and paperwork necessary.
Never did I imply that it was fair. But it's not, as you've stated, just a gay couple issue. If two people aren't married (regardless of whether its allowed or not), then they aren't afforded some rights automatically. I'm not saying this is or isn't fair. But I hear too much that people find themselves in situations that they could have avoided if they had done the paperwork.
What are you and your partner going to do, pay some money and do the work to make sure your rights are protected, or wait on the government to grant you rights at a later date, when you can legally go thru just a bit more paperwork and get those rights now?
Dude, YOU need to learn a few things about the issue. Marriage was NOT a religious contract from the beginning, it was a LEGAL contract. That is what we are fighting for, the LEGAL RIGHT to marry. If a couple CHOOSES to not partake of the contract that is their CHOICE. We are talking about COMMITED couples who don't have the COICE to PARTICIPATE in all the rights heterosexual couples take for granted that they MAY wish to participate in or not. HOW do you not understand that we are being discriminated against participating in the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage. It existed long before democracy, when it was with the feudal lord or the tribal council, not the CHURCH.
And unless you are INCREDIBLY naïve, the sister would very likely not have legal ground to contest a will that I signed with a heterosexual spouse unless she could prove that I had nefarious intentions against a large estate. Being a gay unmarried couple with a will, she holds MUCH stronger ground in a case against me. That's "just the way it is", huh? That's discrimination also.
StLCPfan said:
Dude, YOU need to learn a few things about the issue. Marriage was NOT a religious contract from the beginning, it was a LEGAL contract.
No. It wasn't. Marriages were a moral, religious institution (Thats where wedding ceremonies come in to play before marriages had anything to do with a legal contract.
That is what we are fighting for, the LEGAL RIGHT to marry. If a couple CHOOSES to not partake of the contract that is their CHOICE. We are talking about COMMITED couples who don't have the COICE to PARTICIPATE in all the rights heterosexual couples take for granted that they MAY wish to participate in or not.
Please show me where I said you were wrong for wanting to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple? Can't find it, can you. I said that Marriage was a religious institution (and I'm not even basing this on the bible or any other holy work, mind you) before it ever involved the government. Do your research.
HOW do you not understand that we are being discriminated against participating in the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage.
Please quote me where I said you were not being discriminated. I didn't say either way. You're arguing that there are things you can't do because you can't get married. I'm saying that most of the things you said, such as willing property and having someone act as your POA or responsible party, can be done legally without being married to someone. Sure, having the legal right to marry someone instead of having to do some extra paperwork is easier, but you said it can't be done. I'm saying it can. I deal with it in my job EVERY SINGLE DAY.
It {marriage} existed long before democracy, when it was with the feudal lord or the tribal council, not the CHURCH.
Dude, marriage was around way before the fudal system. Marriage rites were performed by priests in ancient Egypt and other ancient cultures. Back when it was a religious institution.
And unless you are INCREDIBLY naïve, the sister would very likely not have legal ground to contest a will that I signed with a heterosexual spouse unless she could prove that I had nefarious intentions against a large estate. Being a gay unmarried couple with a will, she holds MUCH stronger ground in a case against me. That's "just the way it is", huh? That's discrimination also.
I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to wills, powers of attorney, or anything of that nature. Is it fair always? No. But my saying that that's the way it currently is is not discriminating. You no nothing of my sexuality, nor who I discriminate against.
Cedar Point can't fix Ohio's stupidity. And frankly getting married by a zombie would hardly make its stupid voters feel that you have a legitimate point.
I would venture to say the majority of people here are on your side as far as same-sex marriage goes. Knowing a lot of people at CP as friends, I would even guess that most there get it too. That said, this is a semi-ridiculous platform to make your point on. A zombie wedding at an amusement park is hardly something that screams legitimacy.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Tekwardo, you used the argument that an unmarried heterosexual couple would be in the same position that we are if the sister contested the will. I stated that heterosexual couples have the CHOICE to marry or not, we don't. In conservative areas of conservative states, the legal contract can be trumped by a blood relative. Discrimination happens. Just because you are a white heterosexual male who doesn't experience discrimination on a daily basis doesn't mean other people don't experience it. The stories are out there. Gay and gay friendly news outlets report on it all the time.
Once again, I don't know how you think a LEGAL contract between a man and the father of the woman he chooses to marry is a RELIGIOUS agreement. It existed before religion, it existed LONG before Judeo-Christian form of religion. That's ALL marriage was until religion decided it was in the best interest of society to make it more than that. Don't you understand most of the marriages in the history of human civilization have been arranged marriages, not love between the involved couple? And the feudal system existed LONG before the version we're taught in western European history in eastern cultures.
And as far as the comment about knowing nothing of your sexuality, if you ARE LGBTQ I am not understanding your animosity toward our side in this issue. The fact that you seem to think there should be a difference between the legal contract and the religious connotations of marriage tell me you hold some conservative Christian "values" on the subject. If you're more open-minded than you come across I'm sorry I've misjudged you.
What animosity? Stating facts in a discussion is simply that.
That you don't like what I have to say doesn't make it animosity. Boo Hoo, someone doesn't completely agree with you.
Why don't you show the quotes I asked you to show saying I discriminated against you or anyone GLBT? And what about Jeff's comment?
Just because someone poses a different point of view doesn't mean you're right and they're being mean.
The fact that you seem to think there should be a difference between the legal contract and the religious connotations of marriage tell me you hold some conservative Christian "values" on the subject.
I don't know why me saying that I think Government should stay out of marriage, but shouldn't have the right to tell people who they can be in a committed relationship with, nor who they can assign rights to is holding on to Christian 'values'. Maybe I am a conservative Christian, but if you go back and read Gonch's last post, he's basically saying what I am. You just don't seem to like how I say it.
Looks like you want to have the 'right' to use the term marriage, regardless of what that actually means.
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, their gay days, their packed dance parties, RSVP cruises, Rosie O'Donnell, unusual amounts of hot men, or Harvey Fierstein even though he may be fem. Their focus, clearly, is on Cedar Point and their desire to have a commitment ceremony at that place they love.
BTW, I plan to have my ashes scattered at the park, which they probably also frown upon. The good news is I won't be around for anyone to tell me no.
I was just giving examples of other businesses who have not only accepted the gay community, welcome us with open arms, and create special events to just to get our business. Events that are annually attended by thousands of people. So, there is an alternative, to an un-welcome attitude at a park that probably has more gay visitors, than any other amusement park in the world. (Outside of Disney)
Giving one special day to one gay couple, who regularly gives them business, should not be seen as such a problem. Like I said, it's more about Cedar Point's image, than it is about denying rights. It will also most likely be a mass wedding event, and done with a local minister. What about the other couples? Does this contest say how many they will select?
There is a lot more involved here, than just 2 people getting married. It's a PR event, probably with the media involved. Each and every couple has to know what they are getting into, and what to expect. As I see it, they are doing this to attract more young couples, who will eventually have kids, that they will bring back to the park in the future. It's a long term investment, in the parks eyes, as other couples with young kids will follow.
As, for mentioning the actors. All of whom who are openly gay, was to throw out some role models, who are actively supporting the gay community. That is why I mentioned them. Sorry.
I didn't do it! I swear!!
I'll make this really brief (even moreso than my last post here).
Government has no business being in the relationship business, other than contractual enforcement. To whatever extent government involves ITSELF....the rules (rights, benefits, obligations, etc.) should be the same for everyone.
Rollergator is pretty much dead on. Were we to start from scratch, I would prefer the government only concern itself with civil unions, which would confer all legal benefits upon consenting adults, no matter their genders. "Marriage," then, would be a strictly ceremonial term, with no legal ramifications.
However, since the government has decided to get into the marriage business, it's far too late to make that kind of distinction. Equal access to all is the only just option now available.
Parallel lines on a slow decline.
If a bunch of people disappear won't the lines be shorter? Cool!
Why do you want to get married by a Zombie with a bunch of folks you don't know.
This is a silly promotion anyway ... have a nice ceremony at the Breakers and go on some rides with your friends.
I knew it! I was talking to my partner about it last night and we both thought cancellation of the event altogether would be the likely outcome.
Do they give a reason?
First off, I totally and unconditionally support gay rights/gay marriage. It's been a hot topic in Minnesota in the last year. A proposed state amendment banning gay marriages was soundly defeated last fall. The first gay marriages in MN have just started here recently. I support it.
That being said, if the state of Ohio refuses to recognize gay marriages, then there is absolutely nothing that Cedar Point can go about it. Being upset with Cedar Point is silly. It's out of their hands. Put the pressure on your state legislators if you want to see a change. It has to come from them.
Going to a coaster-geek website asking for petitions to change Cedar Point's position is silly. Hell, we can't even get Vater a simple bran muffin, and that petition has been ongoing for years.
SquareOne42 said:
@etrainimac
Not one single chapel in "sin city" would accommodate us once they learned that it was two men.
ok, was the distinction that you specifically wanted a Marriage ceremony? In that regard, I can understand that the Vegas chapel couldn't accommodate you, as it's currently illegal in NV. However, and this is a huge point, almost all of the big casinos will gladly hold a commitment ceremony. Hell, the Harrah's properties actively advertise that in bridal publications, and so do the MGM properties.
So, I'm not sure of what you are saying, or what the miscommunication was aboot.
As was mentioned up thread, how totally stupid of CP to hold this type of event given the current political climate regarding Marriage Equality, without a fallback plan (two winning couples, maybe?). How in the Hell did they not forecast that a same gendered couple would want to enter the contest, and that this issue, once out there, would be a PR problem, regardless of how totally tolerant CF is on the issue.
Update: Now see that the event has been cancelled. D'oh!
SteveWoA said:
The entire event has been cancelled now.
I blame it all on the zombies. Once those suckers get involved, it's over.
You must be logged in to post
