Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Nov 8, 2006.
This country is disgusting.
*deep breath in*
Not surprising. Does this mean that Gay Civil Partnerships are also ruled out, or just Gay Marriage?
Depends on the state. Marriage has never ment anything else as far as I can see.
I'm disappointed to see WI on this list.
How many, if any, of these are amendments to the state constitutions?
That always seems to me like the worst idea ever. To take the document that defines the government and enshrine a rule that takes away the rights of a group of people. I mean, it worked so well for prohibition...
It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriage becomes a non-issue and these amendments get repealed but it sets everything up to be harder to remove the restrictions once public opinion shifts.
marriage is a name, civil union is good enough, as long as you get full benefits, don't pay too much attention on the name for now, you know the time isn't on those old GOP's side,
New state motto?
Virginia is for (heterosexual) lovers (and it wouldn't hurt if they are both white)
At least the Republicans have blown their wad on this one. They can't get out the hate vote on this issue again, in the same way. It'll be a long road, but eventually they'll lose on this issue.
You hit the nail on the head, sort of. The biggest problem I see with same sex marriage is that people cannot seem to get past the distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage.
There are a few of us on this board who have been advocating that the government get out of "marriage" altogether and instead give some legal name to the contract between adults which establishes guardianship/next of kin and leave the "marriage" title up to the churches to decide who they want to marry. If this were to happen I think you'd see the opposition to same sex unions drop to around 30% or less (probably a high correlation between that 30% and those who still support Bush).
Excuse my ignorance, but were all the states voting on this issue?
Hey - I'm fine with civil unions that grant all the benefits of married couples. I could care less if it's called marriage or not. I've been living with my partner for 7 years--longer than a large percentage of marriage last. Why can't I enjoy the same legal benefits?
I'm just disappointed (not surprised) that this country is filled with morons.
No, but they did try to amend the constitution for this and it failed so the republican states pushed for this. Though for me marriage has allways ment a man and woman I just dont understand someone who is gay then wonders why they cant marry. Marriage is a opposite sex union based around the procreation of our species sprinkled with religious ceremony and doogma and embraced by govt so it can then tax those new taxpayers when they become of age. I would be glad you cant marry.
So your for discrimination then.
Why should one U.S. citizen be able to sign a piece of paper and get a package of benefits over another?
I don't think you, or most of the people in this country have a clue what Equal Protection under the law is.
But there have been a huge number of rights wrapped up in marriage over the years by the state which gay people have no way of obtaining, such as the automatic transfer of a shared home in the event of one partner dying, automatic right-of-attorney when one partner is severely injured etc. Some way needs to be found in America to allow this bundle of rights and responsibilities to be granted to a same-sex couple should they wish to obtain them. Civil Unions seem to be the perfect way to deliver this whilst staying clear of the religious side of the argument.
Also, on your "I would be glad you can't marry" argument, that should be each person's choice to make. Nobody forces straight couples to marry, they do it if they choose to. That choice is denied gay couples.
Dallas County apparently goes dem too, we got a surprising upset for GOP Tobay Shook, and most county judges, one of the GOP loser for judge said she got ousted coz voter are "not educated", lol, its not like she is that "educated"
I don't remember where I heard/read this, but it was described something like this if memory serves.
A regular marriage between a man and woman promotes family and children which are a building block of our nation if you will. The tax benefits and other incentives are there to encourage couples to marry and have children.
Personally, I don't think that it is any more complicated than that.
iGary, I understand your point about being with your partner for 7 years, which is very commendable considering many marriages don't last for that long.
However, I also understand the point of view that I tried to describe.
On a side note, as for the tax system, I wish we had a simple flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. If so, our tax rate would be low and still there would be plenty of funds to run the government. Plus it would be easy as can be to calculate your tax basis!
If we had something like this, then a couple union would be fine because it would deal with the passing of assets which seems very reasonable to me.
I hope that this makes sense as to what I am trying to say.
Hard to argue with that. But I also think if gay couples are able to claim these rights then any two close, same sex, people who are not in a sexual or even 'loving relationship' should be able to claim these rights, too. Any two people, if they can establish a relationship/history, should be able to. If recourse to the law is unavailable for certain groups then we still have discrimination.
And I agree, Civil unions does for the most part the same thing. Almost sounds better then marriage because its easy to marry and a royal pain in the a.. to go through Divorce. Plus why the heck a woman gets half of everything by signing a paper seems like a royal screw job for most men. Marriage and the legalitys that go with it dont seem that great if you ask me. For example I owned my own land before getting married, The day after getting married half of it was hers. Thats a little screwed I think.
I thought these were the kind of rights gay partners are seeking.
I actually agree with Don't Hurt Me, and I don't think I'm for discrimination. Or maybe I should say, "I don't disagree with Don't Hurt Me." If the definition of marriage is "between a man and a woman", then leave it at that. Just find a new word for same sex marriages and give them the same/similar rights.
There are lots of things I simply don't fall into the definition of, and I think I can accept that as not being due to discrimination.
However, I think the definition of marriage should be a union of two people who love each other and want to remain together forever, but hey.....what do I know.
So do you think the man and woman couple should have to prove that they're fertile before they get the benefits? It's about much more than that. And besides, there are a lot of gay couples out there raising children.
However, it has to be accepted that a lot of marriages these days are more about raising the children of previous relationships than having more. In which case, why should two women raising children within a relationship be treated differently to one man and one woman?
When there is a long-term pooling of assets combined with emotional support, I don't see this as being a problem. Take the example of two sisters living in the same house for 20 years. By all sense and purpose, they are a domestic partnership. Why should the law discriminate against them simply because they don't share a bed?
It works both ways. A rich woman's assets are half-owned by her husband the moment the marriage is completed. The lesson to learn is not to enter lightly into marriage and to make sure you're in it for the long term. If you stay together, division of assets never becomes a problem.
This argument breaks down fairly quickly though.
Our society allows elderly couples to get married and assume the rights, yet they have no chance of having further offspring. Should fertility be a pre-requisite for marriage rights? What if a same sex couple wants to adopt? Can they marry then?
As I have stated before, all of the legal benefits of "marriage" should not, nor should they have ever been called "marriage." Marriage is a religious construct. The legal benefits provided to adults should be available to any two consenting adults under the same legal name. If we call it Civil Unions then every "married" couple is also in a Civil Union which covers the legal aspects, but not every Civil Union has to be a marriage. Marriage should be left to the churches to hash out.
As for the tax benefits I think it's completely backwards. I don't think tax breaks should be extended to couples who have kids. To the contrary, it almost makes more sense to me to extend tax hikes for each child (for the record I do have kids). It only makes sense to tax people with kids more. Couples without kids are going to have less of an interest in preserving the environment or keeping the country out of debt. As long as the environment doesn't fall apart or the debt isn't called in in their lifetime they won't care, however those of us with children are more likely to demand a cleaner environment and a sustainable, free country so that our children can have the best life we can give them. Since it's more likely couples with kids will place more demands on the government it is only fair that they should have to pay more taxes.
This is pretty much now how we have it in the UK. Gradually Civil Marriages between straight couples are being referred to as Civil Partnerships in official literature. A religious marriage involves the signing of a marriage certificate that immediately confers all the rights of the Civil Partnership. It's a nice compromise and seems to suit virtually everybody. There was a court case in the early days to try and force the Government to call the same-sex partnerships marriage, but there wasn't much support for it from within the gay communities.
Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.