US Supreme Court Won't block Gay marriages!

[Neserk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040514/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts_4

They start Monday in Massachusettes! WAHOO!

[skunk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040514/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts_4

They start Monday in Massachusettes! WAHOO!
I'm an Honorary Lesbian. Can I come to the party? :cool:

[Saad]

I would imagine that the evangelicals are hopping mad. Most opposition to Gay marriage is bred out of perceived religous rules against homosuexuality, though that opposition would be nullified by the establishment clause.

[skunk]

I would imagine that the evangelicals are hopping mad. Most opposition to Gay marriage is bred out of perceived religous rules against homosuexuality, though that opposition would be nullified by the establishment clause.
Angels dancing on pins again...

[Neserk]

I'm an Honorary Lesbian. Can I come to the party? :cool:

Does one have to be gay to come to the party? Hope not.

[Sayhey]

I'm an Honorary Lesbian. Can I come to the party? :cool:

I've heard you have to "sign on to the homosexual agenda." :D

I know there will be parties, by both gay and straight, in the City when it is official. Now if the US Supreme Court would have the courage to do the same thing the Massachusetts Court did then that would be a hellva party. Hey, its only 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education - it could happen.

[Saad]

American culture is pretty odd. Backwardly consevative in some regards, less so in others.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Hmm. While I have personal convictions against gay marriages, it's not the Supreme Court's duty to determine what is moral. It is the Supreme Court's duty to determine what is constitutional. I can't see how gay marriages violate the Constitution, as some claim. :rolleyes:

Not throwing a party, not hopping mad, either.

[stoid]

Hmm. While I have personal convictions against gay marriages, it's not the Supreme Court's duty to determine what is moral. It is the Supreme Court's duty to determine what is constitutional. I can't see how gay marriages violate the Constitution, as some claim. :rolleyes:

Not throwing a party, not hopping mad, either.

Exactly my thoughts. I'm a rather conservative Christian, and I think that homosexuality is a sin and damnable just like all other sins. That still doesn't make it the government's job to ban it. The government doesn't ban thinking evil thought about your neighbor or lusting after your neighbor's spouse. It also has no problems with those who choose to engage in pre-marital intercourse other than to require them to take responsibility for their actions. Abortion on the other hand IS a matter that I think the government may decide upon because they can effect life and death of current and possible future citizen's of the nation.

[acidrock]

I am a Christian and am for gay marriage. I belong to a UCC church in Seattle that accepts people for who they are, and anyone for anyone, including gay people. That is why I joined it. It shouldn't matter if two men want to marry, the thing that matters is they love each other. Margaret Cho made the argument that people seem to think that gay people can't raise children because we think they will turn out wierd or gay, well she said that the one thing children don't want to become is their parrents, so who are we protecting them from?

[Neserk]

I am a Christian and am for gay marriage. I belong to a UCC church in Seattle that accepts people for who they are, and anyone for anyone, including gay people. That is why I joined it. It shouldn't matter if two men want to marry, the thing that matters is they love each other. Margaret Cho made the argument that people seem to think that gay people can't raise children because we think they will turn out wierd or gay, well she said that the one thing children don't want to become is their parrents, so who are we protecting them from?

Cool. My husband is a memeber of the local UU where we live.

[Neserk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts_11

Follow up article. INcluding a prediction that the end of the world will start on Monday. :rolleyes:

[acidrock]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts_11

Follow up article. INcluding a prediction that the end of the world will start on Monday. :rolleyes:

that's why I don't like yahoo or netscape news, the end of the world started when bush w took office

[Neserk]

that's why I don't like yahoo or netscape news, the end of the world started when bush w took office

They were just quoting ;)

[PickledSquirrel]

Woohoo:D Always makes me happy when americans don't live up to the prejudice I have against them!!!! Nice to know you're not all raving christian fanatics :D :D :D

[Voltron]

ok if they won't stop gay marriages then how come they forbid me from marrying all in my harem? It just aint fair. :( Why is it gay marriage is being allowed but not polygamy? What happened to equal justice for all? Where is my fair treatment under the law?

[Steradian]

ok if they won't stop gay marriages then how come they forbid me from marrying all in my harem? It just aint fair. :( Why is it gay marriage is being allowed but not polygamy? What happened to equal justice for all? Where is my fair treatment under the law?
Indeed that is another question that needs to be addressed soon, for polygamy is apart of many religions, and beliefs.

[skunk]

Indeed that is another question that needs to be addressed soon, for polygamy is apart of many religions, and beliefs.
Only if polyandry can be discussed too! ;)

[Neserk]

Indeed that is another question that needs to be addressed soon, for polygamy is apart of many religions, and beliefs.


Polgamy and polyandry only make sense in a culture where there is a shortage of one sex or the other... and I suspect if you looked at things historically you'd find out that is where it has occured.

[Neserk]

Only if polyandry can be discussed too! ;)

Maybe you are still tipsy?

[skunk]

Maybe you are still tipsy?
No, I mean it: polyandry is bound to be part of SOMEBODY's religion, and if we're going to set the rules according to religious preferences, let's be fair and even-handed about it. The LDS can't have ALL the breaks.

[Neserk]

No, I mean it: polyandry is bound to be part of SOMEBODY's religion, and if we're going to set the rules according to religious preferences, let's be fair and even-handed about it. The LDS can't have ALL the breaks.

LDS have never practiced Polyandry ;) They have practiced Polgamy though...

[skunk]

LDS have never practiced Polyandry ;) They have practiced Polgamy though...
That's what I mean. No special cases. :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

That's what I mean. No special cases. :rolleyes:

I think you are confused... You do know polyandry is one wife, many husbands?

[Sayhey]

Only if polyandry can be discussed too! ;)

Polygamy is marriage with more than one partner. Polyandry is marriage with two men and one woman (practiced in Tibet). Polygyny is marriage between one man and two women (practiced in many cultures.) Just thought I'd clear up the definitions. By the way we have been over this a million times already, but the reasons for banning polygamy is different than those for banning homosexual marriage. Those reasons may or may not be equally invalid, but they have to be dealt with on their own.

[skunk]

I think you are confused... You do know polyandry is one wife, many husbands?
Absolutely. My point, such as it was, was that if polygyny is allowed for the LDS for religious reasons, then, logically, polyandry should be allowed also, on the grounds that it too is probably a religious doctrine to somebody. It was meant as a counter to Von Troll's polygamy comment, which I suyspected was one-sided. That's all.

Not that I can think of any offhand. ;)
TLI.

[skunk]

Polygamy is marriage with more than one partner. Polyandry is marriage with two men and one woman (practiced in Tibet).
Whatever they practise in Tibet, polyandry is "many husbands", not just two. However, I admit I was confusing polygamy with polygyny. :)

[Sayhey]

Whatever they practise in Tibet, polyandry is "many husbands", not just two.

Quite right in that it can be more than two. Just as polygyny can be more than two wives. Polygamy is the overall term for both.

[skunk]

Quite right in that it can be more than two. Just as polygyny can be more than two wives. Polygamy is the overall term for both.
Well, I'm glad we got THAT sorted out. :D
Now, where were we?

[winwintoo]

So I'm a straight woman, my friend Donna is a straight woman, can we get married - to each other?

Just wondering
m

[skunk]

So I'm a straight woman, my friend Donna is a straight woman, can we get married - to each other?

Just wondering
m
Can't you just be friends?

[Sayhey]

So I'm a straight woman, my friend Donna is a straight woman, can we get married - to each other?

Just wondering
m

Yes, but why would you want to?

[winwintoo]

No, we want to be able to share the benefits of being married. If it's going to cost the economy gazillions of dollars having all these gay couples around, I think we should be able to get some of that money spent on us too.

Besides, we would be able to pool our RRSP contributions, I could claim her as a dependent on my income tax should she become disabled and vice versa, if we want to buy a house, the bank would look more favorably on us as a couple than on a single person, if we want to adopt a child -

all the same reasons that a gay couple or an opposite sex straight couple would want to marry. Can't think why two straight people can't have the same consideration.

I was going to ask about marrying my brother Fred but I figured you'd just think that was weird.

m

[Sayhey]

No, we want to be able to share the benefits of being married. If it's going to cost the economy gazillions of dollars having all these gay couples around, I think we should be able to get some of that money spent on us too.

Besides, we would be able to pool our RRSP contributions, I could claim her as a dependent on my income tax should she become disabled and vice versa, if we want to buy a house, the bank would look more favorably on us as a couple than on a single person, if we want to adopt a child -

all the same reasons that a gay couple or an opposite sex straight couple would want to marry. Can't think why two straight people can't have the same consideration.

I was going to ask about marrying my brother Fred but I figured you'd just think that was weird.

m

I know this may sound weird, but don't you leave out that silly little thing called "love." I know there are many sexless marriages around, but why would anyone go into a marriage knowing that there will be no romance. Call me old fashion, I think you should want your partner's bod in the "worst way" to get married. But, hey, if you're in it for the cash, you wouldn't be the first.

[Neserk]

Whatever they practise in Tibet, polyandry is "many husbands", not just two. However, I admit I was confusing polygamy with polygyny. :)


Prior to looking it up I'd never seen polygamy used other than one man, multiple wives. However I did find this:

Polygyny where a man marries more than one woman; and

Polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man.

[Neserk]

No, we want to be able to share the benefits of being married. If it's going to cost the economy gazillions of dollars having all these gay couples around, I think we should be able to get some of that money spent on us too.

Besides, we would be able to pool our RRSP contributions, I could claim her as a dependent on my income tax should she become disabled and vice versa, if we want to buy a house, the bank would look more favorably on us as a couple than on a single person, if we want to adopt a child -

all the same reasons that a gay couple or an opposite sex straight couple would want to marry. Can't think why two straight people can't have the same consideration.

I was going to ask about marrying my brother Fred but I figured you'd just think that was weird.

m

Personally, I think there should be such a thing as a domestic partnership. Where two people in a non-sexual relationship make a commitment to each other and are able to share benefits, etc. Heck, the more people with health insurance the better. I knew two sisters who bought a house together and were essentially domestic partners w/o the sex (ewwwwwwwww-sisters). If one of them lost their job why shouldn't they be allowed to be on the others health insurance? It is better for the country if everyone is insured.

[Sayhey]

Prior to looking it up I'd never seen polygamy used other than one man, multiple wives. However I did find this:

Polygyny where a man marries more than one woman; and

Polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man.

Yes, that is the definition they teach in every Introduction to Cultural Anthropology course. It is only that to most people polygyny is the only form of polygamy that they have ever heard about, and so the meanings of the terms get blurred.

[winwintoo]

I know this may sound weird, but don't you leave out that silly little thing called "love." I know there are many sexless marriages around, but why would anyone go into a marriage knowing that there will be no romance. Call me old fashion, I think you should want your partner's bod in the "worst way" to get married. But, hey, if you're in it for the cash, you wouldn't be the first.

So only those people who are going to have sex should have the benefits? Where's the sense in that. Then I say that all married couple should have to prove that they are in fact having sex with each other before they can apply for and receive any of the benefits of marriage.

m

[evolu]

No, we want to be able to share the benefits of being married. If it's going to cost the economy gazillions of dollars having all these gay couples around, I think we should be able to get some of that money spent on us too.

Besides, we would be able to pool our RRSP contributions, I could claim her as a dependent on my income tax should she become disabled and vice versa, if we want to buy a house, the bank would look more favorably on us as a couple than on a single person, if we want to adopt a child -

all the same reasons that a gay couple or an opposite sex straight couple would want to marry. Can't think why two straight people can't have the same consideration.

I was going to ask about marrying my brother Fred but I figured you'd just think that was weird.

m

Go ahead and get married then. Your friendship could be closer to love than some heterosexual married couples I know. Or, sign up for Who Wants to Marry a Millionare! Let's not pretend like marriage is a sacred institution that needs to be protected.

It's so boring how conservatives all of a sudden want the government snooping into our business. I thought you all wanted less government in our lives?

The fact that a group of our society doesn't have equal protection under our laws is UNAMERICAN - and your slippery slope argument re: marrying your brother does little to cover the plain-faced discrimination behind your stance. Like it or not, even people with lifestyle's you don't agree with deserve the protection of our laws.

[Ugg]

So only those people who are going to have sex should have the benefits? Where's the sense in that. Then I say that all married couple should have to prove that they are in fact having sex with each other before they can apply for and receive any of the benefits of marriage.

m

Can you say can of worms? What's the proof, a soiled sheet, a video? There has never been any requirement for hetero couples to have sex, why should there be one for gay couples?

As far as I know, there are no restrictions. But, just as with hetero relationships, all the baggage of breakups will also accompany gay marriages. Are you really sure you want to marry your friend? What if she decides she wants to marry a man? Everything's now community property and alimony and child support, etc. etc. now come into play.

[winwintoo]

The fact that a group of our society doesn't have equal protection under our laws is UNAMERICAN - and your slippery slope argument re: marrying your brother does little to cover the plain-faced discrimination behind your stance.

You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, I abhor the fact that certain people by virtue of the fact that they have chosen to "marry" - that is to say one man, one woman - are granted certain rights and privileges not available to same sex people who wish to commit to a shared life together or to those among us who for various other reasons end up living out our lives with a family member either as a care-giver to an aging parent or incapacitated sibling, or as joint owners through inheritance of a family enterprise such as a farm or ranch where opportunities for developing relationships are few.

I applaud those who've stood up and made these changes happen. I only want to point out that having come this far, we need to remember that this is not the end of inequality when it comes to family dynamics.

m

[evolu]

You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, I abhor the fact that certain people by virtue of the fact that they have chosen to "marry" - that is to say one man, one woman - are granted certain rights and privileges not available to same sex people who wish to commit to a shared life together or to those among us who for various other reasons end up living out our lives with a family member either as a care-giver to an aging parent or incapacitated sibling, or as joint owners through inheritance of a family enterprise such as a farm or ranch where opportunities for developing relationships are few.

I applaud those who've stood up and made these changes happen. I only want to point out that having come this far, we need to remember that this is not the end of inequality when it comes to family dynamics.

m

Cool. I agree. Marriage does not 'belong' to anyone. And I do think it should be held as a sacred thing - but the last thing we need is our government getting involved in the sacred.

[Sayhey]

You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, I abhor the fact that certain people by virtue of the fact that they have chosen to "marry" - that is to say one man, one woman - are granted certain rights and privileges not available to same sex people who wish to commit to a shared life together or to those among us who for various other reasons end up living out our lives with a family member either as a care-giver to an aging parent or incapacitated sibling, or as joint owners through inheritance of a family enterprise such as a farm or ranch where opportunities for developing relationships are few.

I applaud those who've stood up and made these changes happen. I only want to point out that having come this far, we need to remember that this is not the end of inequality when it comes to family dynamics.

m

Go for it. No one here is trying to tell you not to get married to your friend. I stated my own personal bias, but I don't live your life. Good luck.

[numediaman]

This is from Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit, but now doing a blog for the Washington Monthly:

GAY MARRIAGE AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT....The New York Times reports that the Christian Right isn't having much luck mobilizing its base to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:

Opponents of gay marriage say they are puzzling over why such a volatile cultural issue is not spurring more rank-and-file conservative Christians to rise up in support of the amendment. They are especially frustrated, they say, because opinion polls show that a large majority of voters oppose gay marriage.

"Our side is basically asleep right now," Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, which helped draft the proposed amendment, said in an interview last week.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said: "I don't see any traction. The calls aren't coming in and I am not sure why."

I'd like to throw out a possible explanation for this: San Francisco.

The Christian Right storyline has always been that gay marriage was a sign of moral depravity and therefore to be fought tooth and nail. But then San Francisco started performing gay marriages by the thousands. And what did everyone see?

Answer: no depravity. No Village People. Instead, what they saw on their TV screens were a bunch of ordinary people displaying a disarmingly normal exhuberance about getting married coupled with obviously sincere delight about holding a marriage certificate in their hands. How could you help but feel happy for them?

That's not the whole story, of course, but I think it's part of it. The apocalypse that the leaders of the Christian Right had been foaming at the mouth about finally happened, and it didn't seem so bad after all. Just a bunch of ordinary newlyweds squealing in delight at finally being married just like everyone else.

What do you do when people who are supposed to be the devil's spawn turn out to be as ordinary as your next door neighbor? Maybe you decide they really are as ordinary as your next door neighbor.

[miloblithe]

Polyandry--A yes in ancient Tibet. It also makes sense in conditions when there is an equality of genders. One of the effects, as it was practiced in Tibet, was that a family could keep its entire plot of land undivided and within the family, because all of the brothers in the family (however many there were) would collectively marry one woman. In monogamy, you would either have to redivide the land, or one or more of the brothers would be excluded, to join the church or something.

[Neserk]

This is from Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit, but now doing a blog for the Washington Monthly:

GAY MARRIAGE AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT....The New York Times reports that the Christian Right isn't having much luck mobilizing its base to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:

Opponents of gay marriage say they are puzzling over why such a volatile cultural issue is not spurring more rank-and-file conservative Christians to rise up in support of the amendment. They are especially frustrated, they say, because opinion polls show that a large majority of voters oppose gay marriage.

"Our side is basically asleep right now," Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, which helped draft the proposed amendment, said in an interview last week.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said: "I don't see any traction. The calls aren't coming in and I am not sure why."

I'd like to throw out a possible explanation for this: San Francisco.

The Christian Right storyline has always been that gay marriage was a sign of moral depravity and therefore to be fought tooth and nail. But then San Francisco started performing gay marriages by the thousands. And what did everyone see?

Answer: no depravity. No Village People. Instead, what they saw on their TV screens were a bunch of ordinary people displaying a disarmingly normal exhuberance about getting married coupled with obviously sincere delight about holding a marriage certificate in their hands. How could you help but feel happy for them?

That's not the whole story, of course, but I think it's part of it. The apocalypse that the leaders of the Christian Right had been foaming at the mouth about finally happened, and it didn't seem so bad after all. Just a bunch of ordinary newlyweds squealing in delight at finally being married just like everyone else.

What do you do when people who are supposed to be the devil's spawn turn out to be as ordinary as your next door neighbor? Maybe you decide they really are as ordinary as your next door neighbor.


Good points. I'd also add that being opposed to gay marriage is not = to wanting a consitutional ammendment banning it. You don't see Christians running around trying to create ammendments banning premarital sex or a host of other things they think are wrong. If you can pin them down they will usually state that while they *know* it is wrong it doesn't make sense to create an ammendment.

[Voltron]

The Christian Right storyline has always been that gay marriage was a sign of moral depravity and therefore to be fought tooth and nail. But then San Francisco started performing gay marriages by the thousands. And what did everyone see?

Answer: no depravity. No Village People. Instead, what they saw on their TV screens were a bunch of ordinary people displaying a disarmingly normal exhuberance about getting married coupled with obviously sincere delight about holding a marriage certificate in their hands. How could you help but feel happy for them?

That's not the whole story, of course, but I think it's part of it. The apocalypse that the leaders of the Christian Right had been foaming at the mouth about finally happened, and it didn't seem so bad after all. Just a bunch of ordinary newlyweds squealing in delight at finally being married just like everyone else.

What do you do when people who are supposed to be the devil's spawn turn out to be as ordinary as your next door neighbor? Maybe you decide they really are as ordinary as your next door neighbor.[/INDENT]
Actually from what I heard those countries who legalized gay marriage had their divorce rate (as a percentage of married people) drastically go up.

Personally I think the US government should get out of the marriage regulation business completly. But I admit I don't look forward to seeing openly gay couples walking hand in hand down the street.

[pdham]

Exactly my thoughts. I'm a rather conservative Christian, and I think that homosexuality is a sin and damnable just like all other sins. That still doesn't make it the government's job to ban it. The government doesn't ban thinking evil thought about your neighbor or lusting after your neighbor's spouse. It also has no problems with those who choose to engage in pre-marital intercourse other than to require them to take responsibility for their actions. Abortion on the other hand IS a matter that I think the government may decide upon because they can effect life and death of current and possible future citizen's of the nation.


I couldn't agree more, or put my own feelings anymore clearly. :)

[Mike Teezie]

But I admit I don't look forward to seeing openly gay couples walking hand in hand down the street.

You don't have to be married to hold hands - my girlfriend and I do it in public all the time.

[zimv20]

slytron - if you're not seeing it now,
1) what makes you think you're suddenly going to start?
2) stay out of the big bad city
3) get over your homophobia, it's so 4th century

[skunk]

You don't have to be married to hold hands - my girlfriend and I do it in public all the time.
You don't have to be gay, either. You'd be really confused in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and many other places, where male friends routinely hold hands in the street. Just don't look.

[Voltron]

Polygamy is marriage with more than one partner. Polyandry is marriage with two men and one woman (practiced in Tibet). Polygyny is marriage between one man and two women (practiced in many cultures.) Just thought I'd clear up the definitions. By the way we have been over this a million times already, but the reasons for banning polygamy is different than those for banning homosexual marriage. Those reasons may or may not be equally invalid, but they have to be dealt with on their own.
Its a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Mormons and Muslims both practice Polygamy but their not allowed to get married in the US.

I don't think it should be "legalized". I don't think Homosexual Marriage should be "legalized." But by the same token why do they have to be "illegal"? Just because something isn't legal doesn't make it illegal. The only purpose for marriage law, it seems to me, is for tax purposes. Well I say the real thing we should be fighting for is the removal of marriage from all IRS tax forms.

In addition. Whether or not your spouse is allowed into your hospital room is up to the Hospital not the government. Whether or not your spouse is included in your insurance is up to the insurance company not the government. Can repeat that sentence for allot of things. And it doesn't really matter for these purposes what the sexes of the individuals in the relationship are.

[radhak]

Its a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Mormons and Muslims both practice Polygamy but their not allowed to get married in the US.

I don't think it should be "legalized". I don't think Homosexual Marriage should be "legalized." But by the same token why do they have to be "illegal"? Just because something isn't legal doesn't make it illegal. The only purpose for marriage law, it seems to me, is for tax purposes. Well I say the real thing we should be fighting for is the removal of marriage from all IRS tax forms.

Agreed, marriage shd not be on any IRS tax forms (for the sake of equality for people who are not married). But then, that would beg the question of children on the same tax forms...


In addition. Whether or not your spouse is allowed into your hospital room is up to the Hospital not the government. Whether or not your spouse is included in your insurance is up to the insurance company not the government. Can repeat that sentence for allot of things. And it doesn't really matter for these purposes what the sexes of the individuals in the relationship are.
If it is upto the hospital, then it should not be. How can the hospital decide who to let in to see me when i am injured/ill ? It has to be on the patient's say-so, and if not possible, on some default rules, like the 'spouse allowed' rule. So we are back to square one ;)

[SiliconAddict]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040514/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts_4

They start Monday in Massachusettes! WAHOO!
About dang time. I have a few gay friends who I feel extremely sorry for because they are being discriminated against. Actually in their case they wouldn't give a crap about being married if they could get the same benefits and treatment that married couples get from the government.

[Mike Teezie]

You don't have to be gay, either. You'd be really confused in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and many other places, where male friends routinely hold hands in the street. Just don't look.

Whoa whoa whoa - I meant no disrespect. I hope I didn't come across the wrong way. My belief is that if two people want to hold hands, they will hold hands. If it happens to be two men/women, great!

I never understood homophobia, and its rampant in the part of the country I live in. It's part of the reason I want to move out of the south so badly - close minded people who cling to ancient ideas/beliefs.

[winwintoo]

About dang time. I have a few gay friends who I feel extremely sorry for because they are being discriminated against. Actually in their case they wouldn't give a crap about being married if they could get the same benefits and treatment that married couples get from the government.

Way early in this discussion, I asked (tongue firmly planted in cheek) if I (being a straight female with no interest in bedding any more males) could marry a female friend who shares my lack of interest in bedding anyone and someone immediately popped up and exclaimed "can't you just be friends"

Well, can't we also take advantage of the same benefits and treatment that married couples get from the government??

I'm glad gays finally have this right.

But hang on to your hats because this is just the tip of the iceberg. In this country (Canada) a lot of the argument for gay marriage was in order to afford gay couples the same benefits as married couples. What about a situation where a grandmother stays home to care for the children of her single parent son; what about a well-employed person with good health benefits and no other dependents who has a terminally ill friend with no access to benefits - could they marry?

And what about me and my fictional friend - suppose she owns a house but her job has not dental insurance. I have dental insurance but no house. If we married, we would both benefit.

The times they are a changin'

Have a nice day, m

[Voltron]

Agreed, marriage shd not be on any IRS tax forms (for the sake of equality for people who are not married). But then, that would beg the question of children on the same tax forms...


If it is upto the hospital, then it should not be. How can the hospital decide who to let in to see me when i am injured/ill ? It has to be on the patient's say-so, and if not possible, on some default rules, like the 'spouse allowed' rule. So we are back to square one ;)
children either, or should I say "any", parent can claim the children as long as the same child (via SSN) isn't also claimed on anothers irs statement. Its up to the adults to act like adults and decide for themselves who gets the child tax credits.

If I were a hospital administrator I would include all those from the same address and in the event that the patient isn't able to communicate then those from the same address can authorize those who don't live at the same address.

[Sayhey]

The faces of the end of the world or just Western Civilization? I think not.

[SiliconAddict]

The faces of the end of the world or just Western Civilization? I think not.

Click Me -> :D (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=548453&selectedItemId=548402)

[IJ Reilly]

Click Me -> :D (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=548453&selectedItemId=548402)

Cool. How did you do that? (Find the url, I mean.)

[pivo6]

Cool. How did you do that? (Find the url, I mean.)
Control-click on the song title will allow you to copy the URL.

[IJ Reilly]

You can learn something new every day! (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=4174814&selectedItemId=4174808)

[Neserk]

In this country (Canada) a lot of the argument for gay marriage was in order to afford gay couples the same benefits as married couples. What about a situation where a grandmother stays home to care for the children of her single parent son; what about a well-employed person with good health benefits and no other dependents who has a terminally ill friend with no access to benefits - could they marry?

And what about me and my fictional friend - suppose she owns a house but her job has not dental insurance. I have dental insurance but no house. If we married, we would both benefit.


If you go back you will see I addressed this issue with my opinion a early on!

[pseudobrit]

But hang on to your hats because this is just the tip of the iceberg. In this country (Canada) a lot of the argument for gay marriage was in order to afford gay couples the same benefits as married couples. What about a situation where a grandmother stays home to care for the children of her single parent son; what about a well-employed person with good health benefits and no other dependents who has a terminally ill friend with no access to benefits - could they marry?

And what about me and my fictional friend - suppose she owns a house but her job has not dental insurance. I have dental insurance but no house. If we married, we would both benefit.

What difference does it make what sex the couple are in a sham marriage?

There are plenty of opposite-sex sham and shotgun marriages already; why does a same-sex sham marriage carry some surprise for you?

[pseudobrit]

slytron - if you're not seeing it now,
1) what makes you think you're suddenly going to start?
2) stay out of the big bad city
3) get over your homophobia, it's so 4th century

I love visiting Rehoboth Beach in the summer. It's a nice, quiet, clean family beach. It's also a haven for gay and lesbian couples, who are often seen holding hands and such in public. You get used to the idea very quickly.

It's quite an interesting combination, but I'd rather be there than in the drunken-college idiotfest that is Ocean City, with its crime and obnoxious fratboy types.

That is unless I'm trying to pick up a chick at the bar. My brother tried it once in Rehoboth and chatted up a lesbian for 15 minutes before she told him he was barking up the wrong tree.

[Chip NoVaMac]

No, we want to be able to share the benefits of being married. If it's going to cost the economy gazillions of dollars having all these gay couples around, I think we should be able to get some of that money spent on us too.

Besides, we would be able to pool our RRSP contributions, I could claim her as a dependent on my income tax should she become disabled and vice versa, if we want to buy a house, the bank would look more favorably on us as a couple than on a single person, if we want to adopt a child -

all the same reasons that a gay couple or an opposite sex straight couple would want to marry. Can't think why two straight people can't have the same consideration.

I was going to ask about marrying my brother Fred but I figured you'd just think that was weird.

m

This is one of the reasons that I mention time and time again that those that oppose Gay Marriages may not like the outcome. For it is not unconceivable that the "privileges" of marriage may end up in the trash can.

Keep in mind that if the two of had a falling out there would be a divorce involved. That can be expensive and painful.

And as someone pointed out, where is the love? My wanting to marry my partner has love as the major component to it. It is also for the ease of certain of life's transactions that we want to share in those because of our love.

if it is all about the money and benefits for you, in at least of the 49 other states can have a loveless marriage with a man to obtain those. But there are many of us that have committed and loving relationships that just want to enjoy the benefits that the State and Federal government bestow. Otherwise strip those benefits from all married couples and lets make the lawyers rich.

[Neserk]

You don't have to be gay, either. You'd be really confused in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and many other places, where male friends routinely hold hands in the street. Just don't look.

I noticed that that is true in Israel. I don't specifically remember men but I do remember women doing it.