View Full Version : Marriage Equality Act
Hallelujah,Hallelujah,Hallelujah - I view this as the first step in a civil rights issue that has been ignored and even demonized by many states. If I was a New Yorker I would be very proud today.
Will the Bible Belt ever adopt a similar attitude - yep, but it might take a decade or two.
Peace
The Marriage Equality Act is a 2011 New York State law that allows gender-neutral marriages for both same- and opposite-sex couples in the state of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), while prohibiting state and local courts and governments from penalizing religious and religious-supervised institutions, their employees, or clergy for discriminating against same-sex married couples. It was introduced to the New York State Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Assembly) by Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_O%27Donnell_%28politician%29). It became law on June 24, 2011, and takes effect 30 days from then.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced passage of the Marriage Equality Act, granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry under the law, as well as hundreds of rights, benefits, and protections that have been limited to married couples of the opposite sex.
"New York has finally torn down the barrier that has prevented same-sex couples from exercising the freedom to marry and from receiving the fundamental protections that so many couples and families take for granted," Governor Cuomo said. "With the world watching, the Legislature, by a bipartisan vote, has said that all New Yorkers are equal under the law. With this vote, marriage equality will become a reality in our state, delivering long overdue fairness and legal security to thousands of New Yorkers."
I applaud NY for passing the Marriage equality act.
It's hard to believe that just over 50 years ago it was still illegal in some areas of the US for a white to marry a black person...
Things move slowly, but if it's the right thing to do, it usually happens. I suspect it will take a couple more generations dying off before gay marriage is not just legal, but no longer given much of a second thought by most people.
loosechickens
6-26-11, 12:08am
as a person old enough to remember segregated bathrooms and water fountains, not to even mention laws against marriage of people of different races, this warms my heart to see that we are making progress, slowly but surely, to the equality that we like to think is how our country works, but in practice has often fallen far short of our ideals.
Prejudices linger, inequalities remain, but the barriers are falling, equality is coming, and fifty years from now, we'll look at the period when gay people were forbidden to marry almost as we look back at a time when a black person couldn't get a drink from a water fountain, swim in a public swimming pool, live where they chose and could afford, attend schools exactly as anybody else, and marry anyone not of their race.
We'll shake our heads, and feel like I felt a few years ago at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. that had a display on the civil rights ere that had the actual lunch counter and stools from the Greensboro NC restaurant, where blacks and white held a "sit in" to protest the fact that blacks could not even sit down at that lunch counter and order a cup of coffee. We'll have a hard time believing that ignorance and bigotry could have governed our lives so completely.
Very, very glad to see this legislation.
It's hard to believe that just over 50 years ago it was still illegal in some areas of the US for a white to marry a black person...
Things move slowly, but if it's the right thing to do, it usually happens. I suspect it will take a couple more generations dying off before gay marriage is not just legal, but no longer given much of a second thought by most people.
My kids - ages 18, 22 & 27 - are there. My grandchildren are being raised as Christians and with Lesbian Grandmothers - as well as a bisexual Grandmother. My niece & nephew are biracial Muslim young adults with Queer friends & family members. It's a total non-issue for all of them. THANK GOODNESS!
madgeylou
6-26-11, 10:39am
i heard a talk one time, i think it was by integral philosopher ken wilber (though i may be wrong) and basically he said that all these barriers come crashing down because of love. not some abstract lofty notion of love, but the actual falling in love of 2 people. a black woman who is beloved by her family falls in love with a white man, also beloved by his folks, and suddenly, there's 2 families who have to get over it. bit by by, the world changes because people fall in love.
beautiful to see the same process working on this group of prejudices as well.
many time my husband has said that one's theology changes when one's children challenge it with their choices. ;)
One couple in New York waited a long, long time for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B237YJBK_Tw
Maxamillion
6-26-11, 12:49pm
Even though I don't live anywhere near New York, so glad to hear this news! Maybe some time in the next century, the deep south will follow suit.
I was thrilled to hear this. I am hoping this means my Canadian marriage will be recognized when I travel to NY.
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 2:12pm
Even though I don't live anywhere near New York, so glad to hear this news! Maybe some time in the next century, the deep south will follow suit.
Yes because as we all know from this forum everyone is the deep South is a moron. Honestly, what have you guys got against Southern folks? spits tobacco and waits for the response.......
Yes because as we all know from this forum everyone is the deep South is a moron. Honestly, what have you guys got against Southern folks? spits tobacco and waits for the response.......
The Deep South has not demonstrated a front and center willingness to support civil rights. No one is calling names here... and I understand your frustrations with profiling & stereotyping. What would motivate those you know to organize and lobby state leges to get Marriage Equality on the books?
loosechickens
6-26-11, 3:40pm
Well, some areas of the south (certainly not all), are still having difficulties with civil rights and African-Americans, and also have large populations of very fundamentalist Christian people with strong biases against things like marriage equality.
Certainly, the south is not monolithic, but as an area of the country is far more "traditional", especially in areas regarding minorities "knowing their place", and the "unnaturalness" of gays and lesbians.
I'm a Texan, myself, but it doesn't mean that I'm proud of the prevailing attitudes in my state, only that my views are a minority there, and my vote on things is overwhelmed by those who would be against such things.
A majority of citizens in the U.S. believe that gay marriage should be legal, but the numbers for especially rural areas of the south, only a small minority hold that view, with most holding the view that "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", unfortunately. It's a stereotype, surely, but one with some factual roots in actual polling and viewpoints.
I don't think we're actually talking about civil rights here. This is all about social recognition and acceptance, as all of the "civil rights" benefits touted are available outside of a sanctioned marriage. That acceptance is a much harder nut to crack than passing a law.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the recent push to legislate acceptance requires overturning thousands of years of social norms. To say that the deep south has not demonstrated a front and center willingness to support civil rights represents to me the same intolerance to valued principles that others may think they're fighting to overcome.
loosechickens
6-26-11, 3:59pm
Well, the relatively recent push to gain full civil rights for African-Americans flew in the face of hundreds if not thousands of years of enslavement, consideration of black people as somehow "less than human", etc., yet we managed to change the laws, and since those laws were changed, seen changes in social recognition, opportunities and acceptance by a larger and larger percentage of the population. Although there are still areas of our country and populations that have NOT come to a full acceptance of that in their minds and hearts.
Anyone who thinks that there aren't large numbers of white people in this country only grudgingly accepting the civil rights laws passed for blacks, but still holding prejudice in their hearts, is living in lala land. Despite the country's ability to actual elect a mixed race President, we have a long way to go before full acceptance and support of even that. And it's been over half a century since changes in civil rights laws for black folks.
So I expect that full acceptance of gay and lesbian rights and marriage equality will be much the same. And more traditional areas of our country, and areas that have larger populations of fundamentalist religious people will take longer than others.
As someone else said, it really isn't about "principles", anyway. Minds and hearts are changed when individual people we know, or people in our own families meet discrimination, and seeing their difficulties, our minds and hearts undergo change.
Having the laws to prevent discrimination begins to show people who are discriminating, perhaps, that there is a problem, and over time, changes attitudes. This is certainly not in any sense equal, but I am old enough to remember when drunk driving was funny. But when laws were changed, people attitudes changed as well, over time, and acceptance of drunk driving plummeted, until now most people look very judgmentally at someone driving while under the influence.
Some areas of the country, because of their population mix, religious mix, racial mix, etc., will change attitudes faster than other areas. There are still large areas of the south that are very unaccepting of racial equality. I saw a piece in the newspaper recently that among white Republicans in Mississippi, very close to a majority thought that interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Not that they would prefer that their own children not marry outside their own race, but that it should be ILLEGAL. Who would have thought that in this day and age? Where is Mississippi? In the south..... ;-)
Hey, we could be completely wrong about the south and it's willingness to accept and work for marriage equality. I'd love to see Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and my own state, Texas, embrace equality for gays and lesbians. And maybe it will happen. The stereotype is that the south will drag its heels, as it did in the issue of civil rights for African-Americans......hopefully, that stereotype will be dispelled. We'll have to wait and see.
Well, the relatively recent push to gain full civil rights for African-Americans flew in the face of hundreds if not thousands of years of enslavement, consideration of black people as somehow "less than human", etc., yet we managed to change the laws, and since those laws were changed, seen changes in social recognition, opportunities and acceptance by a larger and larger percentage of the population. Although there are still areas of our country and populations that have NOT come to a full acceptance of that in their minds and hearts.
Anyone who thinks that there aren't large numbers of white people in this country only grudgingly accepting the civil rights laws passed for blacks, but still holding prejudice in their hearts, is living in lala land. Despite the country's ability to actual elect a mixed race President, we have a long way to go before full acceptance and support of even that. And it's been over half a century since changes in civil rights laws for black folks.
So I expect that full acceptance of gay and lesbian rights and marriage equality will be much the same. And more traditional areas of our country, and areas that have larger populations of fundamentalist religious people will take longer than others.
As someone else said, it really isn't about "principles", anyway. Minds and hearts are changed when individual people we know, or people in our own families meet discrimination, and seeing their difficulties, our minds and hearts undergo change.
Having the laws to prevent discrimination begins to show people who are discriminating, perhaps, that there is a problem, and over time, changes attitudes. This is certainly not in any sense equal, but I am old enough to remember when drunk driving was funny. But when laws were changed, people attitudes changed as well, over time, and acceptance of drunk driving plummeted, until now most people look very judgmentally at someone driving while under the influence.
Some areas of the country, because of their population mix, religious mix, racial mix, etc., will change attitudes faster than other areas. There are still large areas of the south that are very unaccepting of racial equality. I saw a piece in the newspaper recently that among white Republicans in Mississippi, very close to a majority thought that interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Not that they would prefer that their own children not marry outside their own race, but that it should be ILLEGAL. Who would have thought that in this day and age? Where is Mississippi? In the south..... ;-)
I know it's important to eliminate racism wherever we may find it. Maybe we could start by not using racial criteria to denigrate others. Just a thought.
When you say "having the laws to prevent discrimination", how does that apply to this thread? Are you implying that gay people did not enjoy the same ability to marry a member of the opposite sex that you enjoyed? Cause it seems to me that you are implying a "right" that no one else enjoyed either.
Perhaps it's a simple matter of semantics, but I'm guessing that's necessary in order to make the preferred case.
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 4:33pm
This forum has a lot of members who are openly and happily biased againt the Southern US, against Christians, and against practically anyone else who dares to disagree with their particular point of view. Funny how several who incessantly remind us how dumb Texans are....are in fact, living in Texas themselves. You wouldnt tolerate a Christian even openly expressing their beliefs. Nor would you tolerate anyone saying that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only. That is called....hypocrisy. You can say what you think should be right, but you wouldnt allow others who disagree to say so.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 4:44pm
Even though I don't live anywhere near New York, so glad to hear this news! Maybe some time in the next century, the deep south will follow suit.
Yes because as we all know from this forum everyone is the deep South is a moron.
So, I take it that means that if someone is against gay marriage, they must be a moron, since that is what this thread is about.
And I don't know about your state, but I'll stack my redneck Oklahoma legislature up against any "Deep South" state in the area of bigotry and intolerance toward anything gay.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 4:48pm
When you say "having the laws to prevent discrimination", how does that apply to this thread? Are you implying that gay people did not enjoy the same ability to marry a member of the opposite sex that you enjoyed?
I had the right to marry the person I loved. Gay people don't enjoy that same right in my state.
I had the right to marry the person I loved. Gay people don't enjoy that same right in my state. And luckily for you, that was a member of the opposite sex who was not a close relative and who was not already married. Restrictions on who you can marry have existed in every society throughout all of history. Changing social and legal norms are a messy process, I understand why people want to do it, I just think some of the arguments are disingenuous.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 4:54pm
This forum has a lot of members who are openly and happily biased againt the Southern US, against Christians, and against practically anyone else who dares to disagree with their particular point of view.
How do you do that? In a thread about a breakthrough for tolerance toward gays, you manage to make it about intolerance toward Christians. Is there no area you see that the Christian majority is other than victim?
And what, exactly, is your position on the subject of gay marriage? Do you think it should be legalized in your state?
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 5:01pm
And luckily for you, that was a member of the opposite sex who was not a close relative and who was not already married. Restrictions on who you can marry have existed in every society throughout all of history. Changing social and legal norms are a messy process, I understand why people want to do it, I just think some of the arguments are disingenuous.
Not for me. I don't have anything at all against polygamy, as long as the marriage is among consenting adults, and as long as women have as much right to marry more than one man as a man to marry more than one woman.
I have no opinion at all about you marrying your sister, on the other hand.
Or your dog, if you wish, since this is that same line of reasoning and next step conservatives sometimes use to argue against the right of two gay people to enjoy the same right as the rest of us.
I guess I made a racially biased error. I was eating at a buffet the other day and the man behind me was British. He asked me what that was I was taking. I told him it was biscuits and gravy. Then I said it is a favorite dish from the southern states but it tastes real good. I also said another name for it is heart attack breakfast food.
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 5:11pm
Not for me. I don't have anything at all against polygamy, as long as the marriage is among consenting adults, and as long as women have as much right to marry more than one man as a man to marry more than one woman.
I have no opinion at all about you marrying your sister, on the other hand.
Or your dog, if you wish, since this is that same line of reasoning and next step conservatives sometimes use to argue against the right of two gay people to enjoy the same right as the rest of us.
Would you have something against someone marrying a child? You seem to want everyone to agree that anything goes. BUT, i'm guessing your answer to this question will be no. So who determines right from wrong?
Not for me. I don't have anything at all against polygamy, as long as the marriage is among consenting adults, and as long as women have as much right to marry more than one man as a man to marry more than one woman.
I have no opinion at all about you marrying your sister, on the other hand.
Or your dog, if you wish, since this is that same line of reasoning and next step conservatives sometimes use to argue against the right of two gay people to enjoy the same right as the rest of us.
Please feel free to trivialize the argument, but once you do you need to be a little less judgemental of others when they do the same.
My thoughts on this subject actually go back to the concept of "rights" and my belief that in the area of marriage, gay people have always enjoyed the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. The debate over same sex marriage is more of an attempt to legislate acceptance rather than an issue of "rights".
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 5:24pm
Would you have something against someone marrying a child?
Children are not "consenting adults".
By definition.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 5:33pm
Please feel free to trivialize the argument, but once you do you need to be a little less judgemental of others when they do the same.
My thoughts on this subject actually go back to the concept of "rights" and my belief that in the area of marriage, gay people have always enjoyed the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. The debate over same sex marriage is more of an attempt to legislate acceptance rather than an issue of "rights".
I trivialize to make a point. You frequently bring up marrying close relatives. I consider that a trivial argument and thus deserves a like response. The only one you haven't used yet from the anti-gay arsenal is marrying your dog. I was just making a preemptive strike. I noticed poetry_writer has already used the "adults marrying children" analogy, the one I thought for certain wouldn't come up in this discussion. Silly me.
Others here have equated this victory with interracial marriage. I'm sure you know, your arguments were also used to deny that right.
And I assume you and I agree that is, indeed, a right? Or are we going to throw the "changing social norms is messy" argument out there again?
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 5:40pm
I guess I made a racially biased error. I was eating at a buffet the other day and the man behind me was British. He asked me what that was I was taking. I told him it was biscuits and gravy. Then I said it is a favorite dish from the southern states but it tastes real good. I also said another name for it is heart attack breakfast food.
We do have a higher incidence of heart disease and diabetes down ch'here.
Others here have equated this victory with interracial marriage. I'm sure you know, your arguments were also used to deny that right.
And I assume you and I agree that is, indeed, a right? Or are we going to throw the "changing social norms is messy" argument out there again?
No, I don't believe that any form of marriage is a right as rights are not something that government can give or take away (they're in the entitlement business). The best the government can do is to simply acknowledge the condition, or not.
There are lots of situations whereby government will not acknowledge the state of matrimony. Again, in this case, the argument is for that acknowledgement.
Edited to add:
I trivialize to make a point. You frequently bring up marrying close
relatives.
If you consider using it as a means of showing socially acceptable reasons for placing restrictions upon legal marriage on one other occasion as "frequently", then you're right. I frequently bring this up.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 6:01pm
You contradict yourself, Alan. First you say gay people have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, now for the sake of argument you say there is no such thing as a right to marry. At all. Nice evasive move, that. It conveniently sidesteps the current issue, doesn't it? By playing semantic games and going in rhetorical loops, you avoid taking a stand on the subject at hand. You make arguments against it, but when pinned down you once again hide behind rhetoric, even to the point of self-contradiction.
If you don't think gay people should be allowed to marry, just say so and defend your position straight up.
rosarugosa
6-26-11, 6:13pm
Well I went to a family party today. My cousin Lisa was there, with her wife Anne, and their two kids. Lisa & Anne were a committed couple for 15 years before they were able to get married here in Massachusetts several years ago. I think it's a great thing. They're a lovely family and these kids will have as good of an upbringing as any kids could want.
I hold my marriage with my husband to be probably the most "sacred" thing in my life. Sacred get quotes because we're not religious, got married by a JP, and have no interest whatsoever in reproduction of the species. We've been happily married for 26+ years. But in the eyes of many, we're legit, but Lisa & Anne are not. Go figure. I like what some of the above posters have indicated - if it's about love and committed partnerships, how can it not be good?
No contradiction Storyteller. If you consider marriage as a "right", then gays have always enjoyed the same "right" as heterosexuals. Of course, considering it as a "right" is wrong in my view, but the point is there is no bias or prejudice involved in the government's acknowledgement as long as their requirements are met.
If you think I'm sidestepping the issue, you'd be incorrect although please continue feeling as if you've gotten the upper hand. I know that's important.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 8:13pm
No contradiction Storyteller. If you consider marriage as a "right", then gays have always enjoyed the same "right" as heterosexuals.
Except they can't marry the person of their choice with the same legal rights and privileges as you and I.
Redux, ad infinitum.
loosechickens
6-26-11, 8:18pm
We understand, Alan, that you love to argue, and generally do a thorough job of it. What I find myself interested in is, how do YOU feel about this new law? Are you pleased to see gays and lesbians given the right to marry the persons they love (remembering that both gays AND heterosexuals will still be constrained on the sister/dog/multiple spouses/nonconsenting child/etc., in exactly the same ways)?
Do you feel it's a step forward toward more equality, or a step backward?
Do you see any parallels to interracial marriage? After all, what were black folks complaining about, they were allowed to marry another black person....right? How ridiculous. JMHO
And you, poetry_writer....how do you feel about it? Happy? Upset because marriage should be "between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?
It would be a lot more helpful, especially since the law is now passed, to get reaction to it, people's feelings about it, assessments as to how posters in various parts of the country feel that others in their area are reacting, as well as themselves, how many of us have gay or lesbian friends or relations who might be affected by this law, etc.
One interesting thing about the NY law is that it does not require gays and lesbians wishing to marry in NY to be NY residents, something that, I believe, HAS been a feature in other states that have passed marriage equality laws.
Will New York become a marriage capital that will rival Las Vegas for numbers of non-resident marriages? Will gay professionals think twice about continuing to live in unfriendly to gay areas now that a large and populous state is welcoming them and considering them worthy of marriage equality?
And, as some gay and lesbian activist groups fear, will the fact that if your home state doesn't allow you to marry, will the fact that you can get married in NY State (and I believe that all states are required to recognize valid marriages from other states), will that slow down progress toward marriage equality in states with not so friendly outlooks?
As gay rights become more prevalent in some parts of the country, and not in others, will we see an exodus of gay people from unfriendly states, similar to the exodus of African-Americans from the south when more opportunity presented itself in less prejudiced states?
Lots of interesting questions here, but most interesting of all is how do YOU feel about this new development?
It's also interesting to see how various demographics and populations differ on this question....I was reading comments on the NYTimes last night, and almost every one was positive, then, on a whim, I checked out Fox News, and guess what? Yep......virtually uniform upset, anti-gay comments, jokes and yep, the hoary old saw about folks marrying their dogs, sisters, etc., as well as the almost inevitable wag with "It's supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", as though they'd come up with that bon mot themselves........
I'm ambivilant about it. I believe that every person, regardless of sexual orientation or race should live their lives with the person of their choice. However, I don't believe that using the legal system and persistant public pressure from special interest groups to force acceptance, especially considering the disruption of thousands of years of social normalcy, to be the proper way to achieve that goal.
I also don't for a moment believe that in the absence of a favorable legal ruling, anyone's "rights" are being violated. No one enjoys the "right" to public acceptance, and no one deserves to be denigrated based upon their reluctance to change their views.
In this case, civil unions would have been the proper method of achieving whatever "equality" that may have been denied this particular special interest group without disrupting what many people consider a social norm, that marriage is between a female and a male. I believe that in most cases, this is considered undesirable simply because upsetting the social norm is the actual goal.
I also believe that equating this issue with the legitimate civil rights issues of the past is just a convenient way to legitimize something in an apples and oranges sort of way.
Edited to add:
Loosechickens, it's not so much that I like to argue, although a good back and forth discussion is always enjoyable, it's just that if you don't have the 'correct' opinion on just about anything in some venues, you end up answering challenges and being labeled by those who disagree with you. That's why I've been labeled at various times as a troll, a trouble maker, a pot stirrer and rabble rouser.
If I had my druthers, I'd probably prefer being labeled as a Devil's Advocate, which would be more accurate, but I don't have much choice in the matter. :~)
loosechickens
6-26-11, 8:49pm
Well, I wouldn't have trouble with "civil unions" myself, so long as ALL couples wishing to tie a legal knot that confers rights on the partnership have to have a civil union. I think that is the case in a few European countries....you can have a big church wedding, but that wedding is not what confers the legal rights.....all couples have to go through a "civil union" ceremony and THAT is the one that confers the legal rights.
Since the NY law specifically exempts religious groups from having to perform gay marriages, and they can continue to discriminate against not only gays, but people who may have been married before, or whatever doesn't fit their particular religious dogma, maybe it would have been better to get religion, etc., out of the state's business (since it's the "state" that confers the legal rights).
I just could not condone heterosexual couples being able to have "marriage" and gays and lesbians to be satisfied with "civil unions". Smacks way too much of "separate but equal", which everyone knew was anything but, but plenty of white people thought they should just accept that because it was a societal norm. Easy to think when you're the one in the catbird seat, I guess.
But "civil unions" would be fine with me, so long as EVERYONE had civil unions, and the civil unions were what conferred the legal rights. then people could have, in addition, whatever religious blessings they wanted from their particular religions, but that "sacrament" would only confer the approval and blessing of that religious group, and not confer any legal rights. I could live with that.
Of course, "upsetting the social norm" was a hallmark of the civil rights movement for African-Americans, too......they'd been waiting since the end of the Civil War, and finally got tired of waiting, I guess. Only "upsetting the social norms" seems to work in these issues.
Women went a long time without the vote.....from the inception of our country until early in the 20th Century, and only "upsetting social norms" really accomplished anything.
Unfortunately, one thing about "societal norms" is that they tend to like to stay static, and whichever group is on top likes things just fine. It's the ones who don't feel that they have the same equality and privileges of the "in-group" that have the issue. And waiting, hat in hand, for the people in power to GIVE equality, and change social norms might be a very long wait indeed.
In fact, if our founding fathers had been afraid of "upsetting social norms", I guess we'd still all be British subjects, because it's doubtful that the prevailing attitudes of those in power would have been exactly hospitable to this upstart, new country.
Thanks for explaining your viewpoint, Alan. Appreciate it....don't really agree with your reasoning, but it's useful to see where you're coming from on the question.
edited to add: honestly I don't see one bit of difference between this and any other "legitimate" civil rights issues. What is different between this and interracial marriages, votes for women, or any other civil rights issue? What makes other civil rights issues "legitimate" and this one somehow not? Except that THIS is the one that is being fought for at present. I suspect that votes for women, civil rights for African-Americans, interracial marriage, etc., all were considered somewhat illegitimate since all went against those "societal norms". Maybe the only difference is fifty or a hundred years later, one "assault against societal norms" has become "normal". I don't know.
you're probably right that on these particular forums, you're probably going to find a majority of people in favor of this new legislation......and on other forums, not so much. I think there are very few venues where one view or the other doesn't predominate, on any question. I bet if you went on the forum my friend, who is a fundamentalist Christian frequents, you'd be hard put to find even one voice dissenting from the virtually 100% view that it's an abomination, proof of the End Times, and one more sign that society has gone mad.
Don't you go to some forums where your view is in the majority? Or are you just here, "selling" your viewpoint, despite all the opposition? (It's a joke, Alan). ;-)
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 9:45pm
Children are not "consenting adults".
By definition.
That does not matter to those whose cultures approve of child brides. There was an article in National Geographic this month (or last) on this.
I really don't understand this "force acceptance" argument - I expect those that were in favor of gay marriage last week are in favor of it this week and those that were against it last week are still against it this week. We've had gay marriage for years in MA - unless you're talking about things like companies having to insure same sex spouses they same way they do hetero spouses, I haven't seen forced acceptance. Can you explain how this is forcing acceptance?
As far as the social norm thing, I would consider what have in MA now the social norm. It's been that way for years, I see no big backlash against it. I think outlawing same sex marriage would be upsetting the social norm at this point.
Added: to repeat my own view, the state should not be involved in marriage in the first place. It's a religious institution. I do see the positives of bundling up the legal connotations normally attached to marriage - but it should be labeled something other than marriage (civil union works for me).
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 9:50pm
We understand, Alan, that you love to argue, and generally do a thorough job of it. What I find myself interested in is, how do YOU feel about this new law? Are you pleased to see gays and lesbians given the right to marry the persons they love (remembering that both gays AND heterosexuals will still be constrained on the sister/dog/multiple spouses/nonconsenting child/etc., in exactly the same ways)?
Do you feel it's a step forward toward more equality, or a step backward?
Do you see any parallels to interracial marriage? After all, what were black folks complaining about, they were allowed to marry another black person....right? How ridiculous. JMHO
And you, poetry_writer....how do you feel about it? Happy? Upset because marriage should be "between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?
It would be a lot more helpful, especially since the law is now passed, to get reaction to it, people's feelings about it, assessments as to how posters in various parts of the country feel that others in their area are reacting, as well as themselves, how many of us have gay or lesbian friends or relations who might be affected by this law, etc.
One interesting thing about the NY law is that it does not require gays and lesbians wishing to marry in NY to be NY residents, something that, I believe, HAS been a feature in other states that have passed marriage equality laws.
Will New York become a marriage capital that will rival Las Vegas for numbers of non-resident marriages? Will gay professionals think twice about continuing to live in unfriendly to gay areas now that a large and populous state is welcoming them and considering them worthy of marriage equality?
And, as some gay and lesbian activist groups fear, will the fact that if your home state doesn't allow you to marry, will the fact that you can get married in NY State (and I believe that all states are required to recognize valid marriages from other states), will that slow down progress toward marriage equality in states with not so friendly outlooks?
As gay rights become more prevalent in some parts of the country, and not in others, will we see an exodus of gay people from unfriendly states, similar to the exodus of African-Americans from the south when more opportunity presented itself in less prejudiced states?
Lots of interesting questions here, but most interesting of all is how do YOU feel about this new development?
It's also interesting to see how various demographics and populations differ on this question....I was reading comments on the NYTimes last night, and almost every one was positive, then, on a whim, I checked out Fox News, and guess what? Yep......virtually uniform upset, anti-gay comments, jokes and yep, the hoary old saw about folks marrying their dogs, sisters, etc., as well as the almost inevitable wag with "It's supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", as though they'd come up with that bon mot themselves........
Loosechickens I dont "feel" anything about gay marriage. I believe God has defined marriage and His purposes will be accomplished no matter what law or laws are passed. What will come to pass in His plan will happen. That is what I believe, has nothing to do with how I "feel".
Don't you go to some forums where your view is in the majority? Or are you just here, "selling" your viewpoint, despite all the opposition? (It's a joke, Alan). ;-)
Nope, what would I have to discuss with a group who all believed the same way. And another big NOPE on "selling" my viewpoint, just giving you the opportunity to hear things you might not in the safety of your own closed world. (Sorry, we are a bunch of jokers aren't we?) :cool:
Alan for President!
That is, if we could pull him away from shooting arrows and baking bricks to form his outbuilding.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 9:59pm
However, I don't believe that using the legal system and persistant public pressure from special interest groups to force acceptance, especially considering the disruption of thousands of years of social normalcy, to be the proper way to achieve that goal.
It worked for civil rights for blacks. Certainly you aren't suggesting that we should have let the Deep South go its merry way with segregation. Certainly you aren't denying Americans the right to petition their government to seek redress of grievances, just because it makes some people uncomfortable.
And yes, I am equating this civil rights issue today with civil rights issues of the past. Bigotry and hate against gays has run as deep in this country as it has for any other minority group over the last hundred years.
And spare us the "correct opinion" crap. You are entitled to any opinion you wish. I have quite often taken positions that run contrary to the majority opinion on this board and have had people disagree with me passionately. Hasn't hurt me a bit. You don't see me playing the victim card.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 10:02pm
Loosechickens I dont "feel" anything about gay marriage. I believe God has defined marriage and His purposes will be accomplished no matter what law or laws are passed.
Then there must be no problem with legalizing gay marriage, since laws are apparently irrelevant.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 10:07pm
That does not matter to those whose cultures approve of child brides.
"Consenting adults" was my one qualifier, if you read back. Outside of that I don't really care whom you marry. Or how many.
It worked for civil rights for blacks. Certainly you aren't suggesting that we should have let the Deep South go its merry way with segregation. Certainly you aren't denying Americans the right to petition their government to seek redress of grievances, just because it makes some people uncomfortable.
And yes, I am equating this civil rights issue today with civil rights issues of the past. Bigotry and hate against gays has run as deep in this country as it has for any other minority group over the last hundred years.
And spare us the "correct opinion" crap. You are entitled to any opinion you wish. I have quite often taken positions that run contrary to the majority opinion on this board and have had people disagree with me passionately. Hasn't hurt me a bit. You don't see me playing the victim card.
Who said anything about victims? If we can't stay on topic, what's the point of the discussion?
I contend this is not a civil rights issue and has no parallels with the bigotry associated with racial relations in this country.
Equating the true civil rights victories of our recent past with a desire for public recognition and acceptance of same sex marriage does a dis-service to the victims of true discrimination.
Please feel free to disagree, and feel equally free to shout me down if you want. I'm tolerant of other viewpoints and mis-placed emotions.
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 10:17pm
Then there must be no problem with legalizing gay marriage, since laws are apparently irrelevant.
No. Laws are necessary in any society. But I dont worry if I see something I disagree with being made law, or not made law. Whatever. Such things will happen.
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 10:18pm
"Consenting adults" was my one qualifier, if you read back. Outside of that I don't really care whom you marry. Or how many.
By your own arguement, why should anyone go along with your "one qualifier"?
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 10:22pm
Sorry about the "correct opinion crap" crack. That was over the top.
I've made my point. I'm done with this discussion. We are just repeating ourselves, anyway.
Congrats to New York for this excellent, ground breaking legislation. I also think it is worth noting that this couldn't have been done without the help of Republicans. I think that is one of the coolest things about it... it was bipartisan. Gives me hope for this country. Sometimes the two parties can get together and do the right thing.
The Storyteller
6-26-11, 10:24pm
By your own arguement, why should anyone go along with your "one qualifier"?
We all should unless you think it should be okay for adults to marry kids.
[I swear, poetry writer, you make this WAY too easy.]
NOW I'm done.
Loosechickens I dont "feel" anything about gay marriage. I believe God has defined marriage and His purposes will be accomplished no matter what law or laws are passed. What will come to pass in His plan will happen. That is what I believe, has nothing to do with how I "feel".
This statement is exactly why I am deeply grateful to live in a pluralistic, secular society, wherein we govern by rule of law, AND poetry-writer is protected in his/her beliefs and desire to worship as s/he chooses. It's an important balance, and one that I think our Framers were geniuses at figuring out.
Maxamillion
6-27-11, 12:19am
Yes because as we all know from this forum everyone is the deep South is a moron. Honestly, what have you guys got against Southern folks? spits tobacco and waits for the response.......
A few points.... (a) I live in the deep south, was born here, and have lived here for most of my life. (b) I said this region would be slow to change...very different from saying everyone who lives here is a moron. (c) I've dealt first-hand with the hatred that some people where I live have for gay people, as have several of my gay friends.
My fav quote: "Don't like Gay marriage? Don't get Gay married!"
Seriously... how is it possible that what someone else does in their private life is such a dramatic big bad thing? Speaking as a legally married woman, and a bisexual woman, it was soooo easy to get married to the man I'm married to now. That was not the case in my prior relationship, which was with a woman, and with whom I have a child - well, our daughter is 27, married (to a man), and a mother, so she's no longer a child - and I felt married to my spouse, lived with her, shared finances with her, shared hopes and dreams with, her etc. But I had none of the protections, benefits, or larger social recognition that marriage affords.
So much so that when I left that marriage, I lost my partner, my job (we farmed together on land she owned), my child, & my home. I had no visitation rights, no alimony, no spousal support, and no recourse. I know, as I pursued the legal angles. I was simply sh*t out of luck as a total non-person. It was beyond horrible - and our daughter paid a price too, as she lost one of her parents when my ex refused to let me see her any longer.
Covering the legal protections by contract do not substitute for the blanket coverage that is legal marriage. If you want to know a very sad example, check out this:
http://www.formywife.info/
Ask yourself if you could go on after losing your spouse like this. Then ask yourself why our civil society continues to practice ignorance and homophobia by denying this legal right to couples who need, want, and deserve the same civil protections as I currently enjoy. I have found absolutely no logical, legal, or ethical reason - and I've both lived this and thought about it for nearly 50 years.
I also think it is worth noting that this couldn't have been done without the help of Republicans. I think that is one of the coolest things about it... it was bipartisan. Gives me hope for this country. Sometimes the two parties can get together and do the right thing.
Yes, this is nice, but I wouldn't give the Repubs all that much credit since the writing is on the wall - younger people are more in favor of gay marriage than older people. If the Rs wish to remain politically relevant, they have to make some social compromises to the generations coming along. A party of mostly grumbling old white folks doesnt have much of a future without making some concessions to changing times.
many time my husband has said that one's theology changes when one's children challenge it with their choices. ;)
That could not be more true. I know from experience.
No, I don't believe that any form of marriage is a right as rights are not something that government can give or take away (they're in the entitlement business). The best the government can do is to simply acknowledge the condition, or not.
Generally speaking I agree with you Alan. Attempts to legislate acceptance and/or morality generally don't get much support from me simply because its not the business I want my government to be in. I agree with those who think social unions should be the (legal) norm, not marriage. If a couple wants to take it farther and add the religious component it would be up to them to find a church that accepts their particular situation.
Redfox's experience illustrates the societal disconnect to me. She should have been "entitled" to the same process I would be if my marriage (to a woman) were to end. I'm very happy the government of NY is acknowledging that same sex couples should be entitled to the legal benefits currently bestowed by marriage in that state while at the same time wishing all government would move to get out of the marriage business rather than attempt to sanction anything. Its not hypocrisy to have mixed emotions about a further expansion of the government's role in private lives even when the cause is just.
poetry_writer
6-27-11, 11:37am
We all should unless you think it should be okay for adults to marry kids.
[I swear, poetry writer, you make this WAY too easy.]
NOW I'm done.
What is that you are saying? You contradict yourself so much you forget what you said in the first place. Obviously you made MY point...that there are absolute morals and ethics. No one on the forum believes that it is morally right for an adult to marry a child. But you are so eager to prove that "anything goes". Until you find something that no one believes "goes". You made my point.
I don't think imposing reasonable limits with legislation is daunting. Its easy to argue, and probably correct in a sense, that some laws push certain moral standards by protecting those who don't have the ability to protect themselves. Regardless of the sex of the participants an adult entering into a relationship with a minor has been deemed to be unacceptable in our society (rightly so, IMO). The definition of "minor" floats somewhat from state to state, but at least the idea carries through for all of us.
One interesting idea is the impact of close relations marrying in a same sex union. The law is obviously intended to stop the multiple genetic defects that occur when relatives bear children, but that would have no bearing in a gay marriage. I'm fairly certain someone in the ACLU already has a brief drafted in anticipation of the first case. Personally I will continue to support gay marriage with the same entitlements and the same restrictions all of us hetro folks work with. Not that I care at all if gay cousins want to marry, I just can't support a double standard going either way. I would be curious to hear from our gay members if this is a topic that has ever even come up or if its just silly and no one cares.
loosechickens
6-27-11, 3:02pm
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
We all should unless you think it should be okay for adults to marry kids.
[I swear, poetry writer, you make this WAY too easy.]
NOW I'm done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is that you are saying? You contradict yourself so much you forget what you said in the first place. Obviously you made MY point...that there are absolute morals and ethics. No one on the forum believes that it is morally right for an adult to marry a child. But you are so eager to prove that "anything goes". Until you find something that no one believes "goes". You made my point. (poetry_writer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, since there are cultures (and religious groups) that DO believe it's just fine for an adult to marry a child, that can't even be considered a universal moral position. WE, here in this country (except, say for the Fundamentalist LDS folks, who have broken away from the main Mormon church in along the AZ/Utah border, who have been cheerfully marrying off 13 years olds for many years), seem to feel it is morally wrong.
But what is REALLY wrong, (to me), about an adult marrying a child is the fact that marriage is a legal contract, and minors are not eligible to enter into contracts. It's a matter of law, much more than a matter of morals, as in the past, even in this country, a hundred years or so ago, young teenagers, that we would consider "children" today, married regularly.
The problem is that morality IS relative.....relative to culture, relative to historical times, relative to a lot of things. So trying to get a handle on "absolute morality" is difficult or almost impossible, because times, cultures and people change.
In the Bible, it was common and acceptable for men to have several wives, and in many cultures in the world today, that is still the norm. In some cultures, it was considered rude for a man not to offer his wife to be a bed partner for a visitor, in others that wives never be seen by any male not members of their family.
What we have here, in THIS legislation is a matter of fairness. A matter of equality.
The arguments against gay marriage all seem to center on one or both of "we've always done it this way", and "the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin", or some variation. Neither are good legal arguments, and if looked at, would have us living in a world where women could not vote, African-Americans were still slaves, and the "traditional way" had been maintained.Thank goodness we are not tied to tradition as some sort of sacred, not to be changed, idea.
Times change, societies change. Our country is a work in progress, just as all of us during our lives are works in progress. We change, we evolve, we develop ability to see from different perspectives, we find ourselves having to deal with and come to grips with our own prejudices in our own families, and we manage. We'll manage with this, too.
It's a step. It's a battle. It's not the end of the war. There are still a host of legal benefits that even a legally married gay couple does not have in equality with heterosexual married couples. One huge one is access to Social Security benefits. We have friends, a gay couple, legally married during the months when gay marriage was legal in CA, who have been together for more than thirty years. One is a doctor, the other was a stay at home wife and mother to raising two young children. Yet, now, at retirement age, the stay at home mom has no access or benefits from the Social Security account of her spouse, something available without question to every stay at home wife and mother in this country who is heterosexual and married, who gets a Social Security check, Medicare and benefits that continue after the death of the breadwinner spouse. That is something that needs to be changed. But all these things will take time. Achieving marriage equality is one step, but there are many more to be taken.
loosechickens
6-27-11, 3:10pm
"One interesting idea is the impact of close relations marrying in a same sex union. The law is obviously intended to stop the multiple genetic defects that occur when relatives bear children, but that would have no bearing in a gay marriage. I'm fairly certain someone in the ACLU already has a brief drafted in anticipation of the first case. Personally I will continue to support gay marriage with the same entitlements and the same restrictions all of us hetro folks work with. Not that I care at all if gay cousins want to marry, I just can't support a double standard going either way. I would be curious to hear from our gay members if this is a topic that has ever even come up or if its just silly and no one cares." (gregg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting point, Gregg........and if the point of preventing marriage between close relatives is to prevent genetic problems, then why would we worry if first cousins or even a brother and sister would want to marry after childbearing years are over. It kind of reminds me of the "marriage is for procreation" argument, when the arguer doesn't seem to see any difficulty with older people, senior citizens, women or men incapable of having a child or producing healthy sperm is involved, just not "gay people".........
It's always interesting to me to think about what things are really important, serve a real purpose and are useful for society to legislate, and what things are in there just because if they are not, someone's religious values, or something similar, would be offended.
So, it's an interesting point.....if gay people cannot procreate, why would it matter if they were closely related, and by the same token, why would heterosexual people who were incapable of producing offspring have to be bound by a law that intends to prevent genetic problems in children. What would be right for the goose would be right for the gander.
I'm absolutely SURE that somewhere, somehow, someone will challenge THAT particular law, too.......
One huge one is access to Social Security benefits. We have friends, a gay couple, legally married during the months when gay marriage was legal in CA, who have been together for more than thirty years. One is a doctor, the other was a stay at home wife and mother to raising two young children. Yet, now, at retirement age, the stay at home mom has no access or benefits from the Social Security account of her spouse, something available without question to every stay at home wife and mother in this country who is heterosexual and married, who gets a Social Security check, Medicare and benefits that continue after the death of the breadwinner spouse. That is something that needs to be changed. But all these things will take time. Achieving marriage equality is one step, but there are many more to be taken.
That's strange!
California's Domestic Partnership Act of 2003 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/FAM/1/d2.5/1/s297)addressed those issues outside the bounds of legal matrimony.
Listed below are the minimum requirements for registration as provided in Family Code Section § 297:
A. Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.
B. A domestic partnership shall be established in California when all of the following requirements are met:
1. Both persons have a common residence.
2. Both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses incurred during the domestic partnership.
3. Neither person is married or a member of another domestic partnership.
4. The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
5. Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
6. Either of the following:
a. Both persons are members of the same sex.
b. One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.
7. Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.
8. Neither person has previously filed a Declaration of Domestic Partnership pursuant to this division that has not been terminated
9. Both file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division.
c. "Have a common residence" means that both domestic partners share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two people have a common residence even if one or both have additional residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return. Does this even make any sense?
d. "Basic living expenses" means shelter, utilities, and all other costs directly related to the maintenance of the common household of the common residence of the domestic partners. It also means any other cost, such as medical care, if some or all of the cost is paid as a benefit because a person is another person's domestic partner. Not sure that this section is very clear either.
e. "Joint responsibility" means that each partner agrees to provide for the other partner's basic living expenses if the partner is unable to provide for herself or himself. Persons to whom these expenses are owed may enforce this responsibility if, in extending credit or providing goods or services, they relied on the existence of the domestic partnership and the agreement of both partners to be jointly responsible for those specific expenses. This means that seniors and gays can have the same fun in Court that younger straight couples have and the same expenses.
f. "No Other Relationships:" Neither person can be married to a person orf another domestic partnership.
g. "Not Related:" The persons cannot be related to each other in a manner that would otherwise prohibit them from being married in California. This means that if you couldn't marry your brother, sister or first cousin, you cannot enter into a Domestic Partnership either.
h. "No Minors:" Both persons must be at least 18 years old. I would hope that only adults would get married or enter into Domestic Partnerships.
i. "Same Sex or Elderly:" The persons must be of the same sex, unless they are both eligible to receive Social Security Benefits. (FC§297(b)), in which case they can be of the opposite sex. This is fairly straight forward.
J. "Legally Competent:" Both partners must be legally capable of consenting to the establishment of a domestic partnership. This means that you are sufficiently sane that you know what you are doing. Someone who is under a Court Ordered Conservatorship would not be able to marry or enter into a Domestic Partnership, unless approved by the Court.
k. "Consent to Jurisdiction of the Superior Court:" Both partners must consent to the jurisdiction of the superior court to enter a judgment of dissolution, nullity, legal separation, or any other proceeding related to the relationship, even if one or both of the partners no longer resides in California. This is where we lawyers get you. If you entered into a Domestic Partnership and moved to Ohio, you have to come back to dissolve the partnership. Why? Because other states may not recognize the partnership and may not have a procedure to dissolve the partnership.
loosechickens
6-27-11, 3:26pm
Social Security benefits are Federal benefits, and cannot be accessed by gay partners, (other than under their OWN Social Security account) either in a legal Domestic Partnership union, or legally married in a state that allows gay marriage.
However, a heterosexual couple that legally marries in any state is entitled to Federal benefits of marriage, which allows a wife who has always stayed home as a wife and mother and never worked, to collect Social Security and be eligible for Medicare at retirement age, on the breadwinner spouse's account.
The Federal government does not yet recognize gay marriage, however legal it may be in the state in which the partner's married, as a basis for Federal Social Security benefits.
That will take Federal legislation, and right now, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act stands in the way of progress in that area, as I understand it.
loosechickens
6-27-11, 3:40pm
I THINK, Alan, from a quick reading of what you posted, that the reference in there to Social Security is simply that to enter into a Domestic Partnership in CA, participants must be of the same sex, or if opposite sex, one or more must be over age 62, as defined by Social Security rules.....
I've got to leave for an appointment and will be gone all afternoon, but as far as I know, and as told to me by gay friends, including the couple mentioned above, legally married gay couples have no access to a partner's Social Security account if one was a stay at home spouse and/or parent, when a stay at home, nonworking spouse and/or parent in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to full benefits.......
Upon reflection, I think you're right. I remember when this subject, specifically in California, came up on these boards some years ago and the Domestic Partnership Act was discussed at great length. My memory of the discussion led me to believe that there was some consensus that SS Benefits were permitted, but you know how memories are.
Maxamillion
6-27-11, 7:19pm
Not that I care at all if gay cousins want to marry, I just can't support a double standard going either way. I would be curious to hear from our gay members if this is a topic that has ever even come up or if its just silly and no one cares.
In about half the states, it's actually legal to marry your first cousin (some states do have certain requirements for it).
The Storyteller
6-27-11, 10:14pm
My mom's first marriage was to her first cousin. They had three children, one stillborn and the others died within their first year. She had three more children (none of them me) in that first marriage, all from different fathers and none of them from her husband. Mama was a wild thing.
Till she married my dad. Then she settled down and bore us last three. We all share the same father.
As far as we know.
I'm bemused by all the emphasis on the "sin" of homosexuality among certain Christian sects, as from what I can figure out Jesus was much more concerned with feeding the poor, healing the sick, and routing the money-changers than he was in gay relationships. Did he even mention them?
Interesting which "sins" certain people choose to dwell on.
My mom's first marriage was to her first cousin. They had three children, one stillborn and the others died within their first year. She had three more children (none of them me) in that first marriage, all from different fathers and none of them from her husband. Mama was a wild thing.
Till she married my dad. Then she settled down and bore us last three. We all share the same father.
As far as we know.
Now, THIS is a tantalizing story! Wow...
This is a tough discussion. I really see all points involved here. Two people, who are good people in everyway, who love each other, want to raise good children - and they are the same sex. Why should we limit their love and happiness? Again very hard choices have to be made.
As a member of the LDS Church (Mormon) [like you guys don't already know that]...I believe in a living prophet, someone who receives guidence from God. Some years ago, the Church published a document entitled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" among other items, it states that marriage is ordained of God, and is between a man and a woman - paraphasing here.
We don't understand everything at this time, but I believe in a prophet who can guide us in times of difficult decisions. I believe the Savior's life was an example to us. How to treat each other, even those who don't believe the same way we do.
http://lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng
madgeylou
6-28-11, 12:47am
I'm bemused by all the emphasis on the "sin" of homosexuality among certain Christian sects, as from what I can figure out Jesus was much more concerned with feeding the poor, healing the sick, and routing the money-changers than he was in gay relationships. Did he even mention them?
http://godhatesprotesters.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/as-jesus-said-about-gay-people/
I can't wait for the day when this is just old news and people are allowed to live their lives how they see fit!
But the thing is, people are allowed to live their lives how they see fit. The issue is that they also want to receive benefits and cultural recognition that have historically been reserved for traditional marriage.
There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue and each have well founded concerns. I can't wait for the day when a person can take a principled stand on an issue such as this and not be labeled a bigot.
And didn't use the word bigot. Can't wait for the day where people can have a discussion and not be accused of saying things they didn't.
Sorry, wasn't talking about you. My apologies if you took it personally.
Social Security benefits are Federal benefits, and cannot be accessed by gay partners, (other than under their OWN Social Security account) either in a legal Domestic Partnership union, or legally married in a state that allows gay marriage.
However, a heterosexual couple that legally marries in any state is entitled to Federal benefits of marriage, which allows a wife who has always stayed home as a wife and mother and never worked, to collect Social Security and be eligible for Medicare at retirement age, on the breadwinner spouse's account.
Off the point, but just for clarity, the spouse doesn't have to be the wife and doesn't have to have not worked outside the home. My BFF always worked, and now draws on her late first husband's SS. My late DH drew on his late first wife's SS. A widow/er must be 60 to start drawing, and must have been legally married to the person for at least ten years. Because late DH and I were not legally married, I won't be able to draw on his even when I reach age 60.
i heard a talk one time, i think it was by integral philosopher ken wilber (though i may be wrong) and basically he said that all these barriers come crashing down because of love. not some abstract lofty notion of love, but the actual falling in love of 2 people. a black woman who is beloved by her family falls in love with a white man, also beloved by his folks, and suddenly, there's 2 families who have to get over it. bit by by, the world changes because people fall in love.
beautiful to see the same process working on this group of prejudices as well.
That's beautiful, thank you.
My thoughts on this subject actually go back to the concept of "rights" and my belief that in the area of marriage, gay people have always enjoyed the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
I don't understand that - how can gays have always enjoyed the same rights as heterosexuals when in fact for many years they were likely to be beaten, arrested and shunned for their sexuality, and even now can't marry who they love and can't for instance collect from their lover's Social Security account as married hetersexuals can?
Having the right to marry someone you don't want to marry is not really meaningful, if you mean they've always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Totally irrelevant in fact, since what we're talking about is legal same-sex marriage.
I don't understand that - how can gays have always enjoyed the same rights as heterosexuals when in fact for many years they were likely to be beaten, arrested and shunned for their sexuality, and even now can't marry who they love and can't for instance collect from their lover's Social Security account as married hetersexuals can?
Having the right to marry someone you don't want to marry is not really meaningful, if you mean they've always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Totally irrelevant in fact, since what we're talking about is legal same-sex marriage.
Actually, it is quite relevant. If you consider something to be a legal right then it has a legal definition. By definition, gays have always enjoyed the same matrimonial "rights" and restrictions as their heretosexual counterparts. What many states and nations are now doing is to change the "rights" and restrictions to benefit a specific group.
People have been beaten, arrested and shunned for a variety of reasons throughout history. While some of that was a crime and others were simply not nice, in many parts of the world hate speech laws have been instituted to protect specific groups, including gays, from the thought crime of public disapproval.
As a conservative, I could use me some of that there hate speech protection in some of the places I frequent. :laff:
I'm still in the camp that would like to make a legal distinction between a civil union and a marriage. We've talked about it enough, I'm just not sure what the hold up is. A civil union between two consenting adults should convey all the benefits that currently get lumped in with marriage. Social security benefits, retirement, division of assets if the union dissolves, child support and visitation if the couple had children, insurance benefits, end of life issues and on and on. It should be a legal partnership that provides for sharing those benefits as well as the responsibilities. A relatively simple contract between two adults without any consideration of sex, color, height, shoe size, etc. The only place the government needs to be involved would be to insure the most basic rules are followed (blood tests, close relatives, age requirements met, etc.). Not particularly romantic, but not intended to be.
Marriage itself can remain in the realm of the churches, where it should be. It can continue as a joining of two people in the eyes of God/Allah/Buddha, whichever they follow. The church can decided whether or not to recognize same sex marriages without guidance from the government. Any couple that values the religious aspect of marriage would have completely free reign to make that bond limited only by their choice of religious venues. It would be something that can be added over and above the more businesslike aspect of a civil union.
I'm still in the camp that would like to make a legal distinction between a civil union and a marriage. We've talked about it enough, I'm just not sure what the hold up is. A civil union between two consenting adults should convey all the benefits that currently get lumped in with marriage. Social security benefits, retirement, division of assets if the union dissolves, child support and visitation if the couple had children, insurance benefits, end of life issues and on and on. It should be a legal partnership that provides for sharing those benefits as well as the responsibilities. A relatively simple contract between two adults without any consideration of sex, color, height, shoe size, etc. The only place the government needs to be involved would be to insure the most basic rules are followed (blood tests, close relatives, age requirements met, etc.). Not particularly romantic, but not intended to be.
Marriage itself can remain in the realm of the churches, where it should be. It can continue as a joining of two people in the eyes of God/Allah/Buddha, whichever they follow. The church can decided whether or not to recognize same sex marriages without guidance from the government. Any couple that values the religious aspect of marriage would have completely free reign to make that bond limited only by their choice of religious venues. It would be something that can be added over and above the more businesslike aspect of a civil union.
I absolutely agree with this. This is the most reasonable and sane approach I think. Takes all the passionate rhetoric out of the discussion and puts it in pretty plain terms. How do the ones here who are against same sex 'marriage' feel about this? Civil unions for everyone with all the legal rights to go with it. For everyone in order to be recognized by the state as married.
The Storyteller
6-28-11, 12:28pm
If a "civil union" is identical in all ways legal to "marriage", what is the difference? Aren't we playing a semantic game? Why not just call it married? People get married all the time without religious overtones. Are we just wanting to call it something else just to keep from offending someone?
Now, if you are saying you want to divorce the concept of marriage from religion altogether, I'm fine with that. Have two ceremonies, one legal, one symbolic or relitious. But I don't see how calling it something other than marriage is going to change anything at all.
If it walks like a duck...
But a civil union would not be identical to marriage. It should be much more detailed as to EXACTLY what the participants should expect than our current institution of marriage. It should be a business contract between two people in every sense of that. "Marriage" spells out some things (like social security), leaves some things in gray areas (like insurance benefits) and carries varying degrees of other connotations (like religion). A civil union would entitle, to coin a phrase, the two people involved to a very specific list of legal benefits and remedies, no more, no less. It should not take any personal traits like the aforementioned sex, color, shoe size, into account. Two people make a commitment to each other and the various institutions in this country recognize it. Period. And any ceremony is purely optional. The semantics would only come into play when the two people described their relationship. Would partners in a civil union represent themselves as married to their friends? Of course, the word is engrained in our culture, but so what?
I personally wouldn't want "to divorce the concept of marriage from religion" at all. Quite the opposite in fact. When I'm elected king the concept of marriage will be exclusively WITHIN the confines of religion. All the passion, emotion, tradition and faith will still be available for anyone who wishes to make that a part of their lives. They can plan any level of ceremony they deem appropriate. What it won't do is entitle the couple to any legal benefit beyond what is already bestowed on the partners in a civil union.
Marriage is a word used to describe both a civil institution and a religious ritual and covenant. I truly think this language confusion is behind so much disagreement. It's difficult to disentangle them, because cultural traditions are a part of the basis for civil institutions - though not entirely; legal traditions and precedences also factor in to the establishment of civil institutions. Religious marriage in the context of a church is specific to that church, and every church has the absolute right to discriminate in regard to who they wish to marry. Civil marriage as recognized by the state & the Feds is a legal status, and IMHO, governmental institutions must bring equality to civil marriage - which is in fact a 3 party contract between the marrying parties and the state. The state maintains its interests in the welfare of the couple and any children and property they may produce & acquire. Not every couple have children; nonetheless, the state maintains its interest as no one can predict who will or will not have children.From a civil perspective, it's vital to the well-being of our communities that all families and couples be protected equally, and have equal benefits under the law; thus civil marriage for same-gender couples is timely and appropriate. This has no effect on religious marriage. How shall we remedy the linguistic confusion?
treehugger
6-28-11, 2:19pm
Just to throw another perspective in the mix, I am opposed to the "separate but equal" practice of instituting civil unions to substitute for marriage for gay people. First because we know that separate but equal isn't really equal at all, but also because I cannot agree to the widely-held assumption that marriage (the word and the concept of marriage) is only important in a religious and/or procreative context.
I am in no way religious (I am Jewish by heritage, but completely agnostic), but marrying my husband was important to me (for lots of personal reasons) even though we had no intention of having children. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, but I have had lots of people IRL assert to me that there's not reason for people like us (my husband and me) to get married, because we didn't do it in a church and/or we never intended to have children. And these people didn't even say it maliciously, just that they couldn't conceive of a reason to get married without those motivations.
So, if I feel the need to be married, then I certainly would not deny anyone else (consenting adults only, please!) that pleasure, no matter what their motivations. And that's not even touching on legal rights conferrred automatically by marriage that would all be available instantly to gay people if we just allowed them the same rights that I, as a heterosexual, was born with access to. Yeah, yeah, I know there's debate about the word "rights" but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Anyway, just wanted to offer perspective on why I am against the idea of civil unions.
Kara
Kara, you've nailed the importance of the cultural ritual and importance of marriage. It's one of those acceptance things... when I had a female partner & we could not get married, I felt invisible. It was awe inspiring how that changed when I married my husband - even though the celebrant marrying us was a friend & got "ordained" online in some off-the-wall process, just so he could be legal in my state. Religion had nothing to do with our marriage; community recognition was everything. THIS is a huge part of the Equal Marriage push - being able to be on the inside of the circle of humanity, and recognized, honored & accepted as being equal, included, and welcomed. Everyone benefits - kids especially.
So, it looks like we're back to my original assertion that this is more of a push to legislate a cultural acknowledgement and acceptance.
Kara, you've nailed the importance of the cultural ritual and importance of marriage. It's one of those acceptance things... when I had a female partner & we could not get married, I felt invisible. It was awe inspiring how that changed when I married my husband - even though the celebrant marrying us was a friend & got "ordained" online in some off-the-wall process, just so he could be legal in my state. Religion had nothing to do with our marriage; community recognition was everything. THIS is a huge part of the Equal Marriage push - being able to be on the inside of the circle of humanity, and recognized, honored & accepted as being equal, included, and welcomed. Everyone benefits - kids especially.
THIS! It is really frustrating to work outside the bounds of marriage when you are a couple. The only reason my bf and I are not married yet is because he is trans, and all his paperwork is still 'female'. He is working on getting it all changed, so hopefully we can get married at the end of this year. Its a silly hoop to have to jump through!
I've been lucky to get bf on my insurance based on domestic partnership grounds, but bf gets sick/hospitalized a lot and if that happens before we get married, legally I wouldn't fall under spouse laws to be able to visit him, etc.
What I'm referring to, and I think Gregg also, is that everyone have the civil ceremony if they want to be recognized by the state. Everyone. Simple JP, sign the papers and your married.
Then each couple can, or not, have a ceremony to their liking. In a church, on a beach or hang gliding. You can have your religious leader perform it, or the local bar keep, doesn't matter cause you are already LEGALLY married.
We must get religion out of marriage. The church doesn't have the power to give you, or withhold, social security, visitation rights, insurance or all the other legal rights and privileges that marriage grants, so they shouldn't have the power to confer those things. Absolute separation of church and state. As long as religion is given this legal right there is no true separation.
And if you get your panties in a twist because people call it marriage, well tough. Get over it. Legal marriage for all, ceremony for those who want it. And if your church doesn't recognize Adam and Steve's marriage, well I'm sure they can live with that. :)
treehugger
6-28-11, 3:48pm
What I'm referring to, and I think Gregg also, is that everyone have the civil ceremony if they want to be recognized by the state. Everyone. Simple JP, sign the papers and your married.
Then each couple can, or not, have a ceremony to their liking. In a church, on a beach or hang gliding. You can have your religious leader perform it, or the local bar keep, doesn't matter cause you are already LEGALLY married.
I don't disagree with this. From discussions with a German friend, this is how I understand Germany does it, and it makes perfect sense to me. However, I don't see that happening in the U.S., and therefore I am against the concept of creating a separate thing called a civil union for gay people. If it really were a case of "Legal marriage for all, ceremony for those who want it," then I would be in favor of that.
I was married in a courthouse by a JP, btw, and I didn't feel the need for any more ceremony than that. So yeah, I'm married. And it ain't just about social acceptance, but it's really hard to describe the importance, so let's just keep it simple make it accessible to all (consentiing adults, again), since that doesn't actually affect anyone else but the two getting married.
Kara
So, it looks like we're back to my original assertion that this is more of a push to legislate a cultural acknowledgment and acceptance.
Alan, it's not an either-or proposition. It's legal protections AND the cultural significance. Neither can be separated, as both are a part of the human experience. In my life experience, the legal assurances were more important to me than the cultural acceptance, because I lived in a community that accepted me (Lopez island - your neighbor!) as I was.
I would imagine that on the continuum of legal rights at one end and social acceptance at the other, every Queer couple & family would be at a different place on that continuum every day depending upon their life experiences at the moment. Social acceptance may be more important at Grandma's 80th birthday party, and legal rights more so in a hospital ER.
What heterosexual couples (married or not) take for granted - like a fish in water - Queer couples have to think through, agonize over, hire an expensive attorney (if they can afford it) to draft dubious legal assurances, which cover a fraction of the rights presumed by heterosexual standing and tradition which is legal marriage. It's exhausting, and definitely communicates second class status at every turn.
Our society has been through this before; women used to be rendered as property when married, and agitated for legal standing within the institution. Biracial couples were outlawed and defied that despite the sometimes horrific consequences. Society grows, changes, adapts; and rather awkwardly. The transition to legal marriage for same gender couples will happen, the social norms that have been evolving will continue to do so; some people will likely never understand same gender couples just as some people never understand biracial couples. Nonetheless, legal marriage is a sensible next step.
I don't disagree with this. From discussions with a German friend, this is how I understand Germany does it, and it makes perfect sense to me. However, I don't see that happening in the U.S., and therefore I am against the concept of creating a separate thing called a civil union for gay people. If it really were a case of "Legal marriage for all, ceremony for those who want it," then I would be in favor of that.
I was married in a courthouse by a JP, btw, and I didn't feel the need for any more ceremony than that. So yeah, I'm married. And it ain't just about social acceptance, but it's really hard to describe the importance, so let's just keep it simple make it accessible to all (consentiing adults, again), since that doesn't actually affect anyone else but the two getting married.
Kara
If I remember correctly, in France you can have it either way. Same sex or not all choose whether they want a marriage or a civil union. Many man/woman couples choose having a civil union over a marriage just because it does not have all the baggage tied to marriage.
In my life experience, the legal assurances were more important to me than the cultural acceptance, because I lived in a community that accepted me (Lopez island - your neighbor!) as I was.
I think you're confusing me with someone else, possibly someone living a little closer than the 2500 or so miles between Cincinnati and Lopez Island. Most likely someone who doesn't post here anymore.
Oh... I thought you lived on Orcas... who am I thinking of - who posts those awesome island photos? Sorry for the confusion, dude!
That would be bae. He hasn't yet returned from exile.
I get the confusion though, I understand we all look alike. >8)
That would be bae. He hasn't yet returned from exile.
I get the confusion though, I understand we all look alike. >8)
That is so funny, I was just going to post the same thing about them all looking alike.
Well, I'll tell ya, I don't look like you or bae. Not specific body parts, anyway.
Well, I'll tell ya, I don't look like you or bae. Not specific body parts, anyway.
And I appreciate the differences. I mean I really, really do!
There is never really any decent discussion against legalizing gay marriage on this board. For that, you've got to go elsewhere. And no, I'm not going to be the one to bring up those points, I'm tired of that stuff.
My conscious is clean and my creds would fit in with the overwhelming view of this board since I voted on the referendum in my state to allow gay marriage (it didn't pass.)
But I think there are valid, substantive points against legalizing gay marriage although it will undoubtedly come ahead in our society and those points will be lost.
iris lily
6-28-11, 10:00pm
My fav quote: "Don't like Gay marriage? Don't get Gay married!"
Seriously... how is it possible that what someone else does in their private life is such a dramatic big bad thing? Speaking as a legally married woman, and a bisexual woman, it was soooo easy to get married to the man I'm married to now. That was not the case in my prior relationship, which was with a woman, and with whom I have a child - well, our daughter is 27, married (to a man), and a mother, so she's no longer a child - and I felt married to my spouse, lived with her, shared finances with her, shared hopes and dreams with, her etc. But I had none of the protections, benefits, or larger social recognition that marriage affords.
So much so that when I left that marriage, I lost my partner, my job (we farmed together on land she owned), my child, & my home. I had no visitation rights, no alimony, no spousal support, and no recourse. I know, as I pursued the legal angles. I was simply sh*t out of luck as a total non-person. It was beyond horrible - and our daughter paid a price too, as she lost one of her parents when my ex refused to let me see her any longer.
Covering the legal protections by contract do not substitute for the blanket coverage that is legal marriage. If you want to know a very sad example, check out this:
http://www.formywife.info/
Ask yourself if you could go on after losing your spouse like this. Then ask yourself why our civil society continues to practice ignorance and homophobia by denying this legal right to couples who need, want, and deserve the same civil protections as I currently enjoy. I have found absolutely no logical, legal, or ethical reason - and I've both lived this and thought about it for nearly 50 years.
Not to be glib, but government protection is no substitute for choosing a responsible life partner who has integrity and who does his/her best for the family and child. And if the family falls apart despite best efforts of both parties, you've still got a responsible person of integrity on the other end of the negotiation table, one who will do the right thing for the child which usually means keeping a parental relationship alive with the absent parent.
Not to be glib, but government protection is no substitute for choosing a responsible life partner who has integrity and who does his/her best for the family and child. And if the family falls apart despite best efforts of both parties, you've still got a responsible person of integrity on the other end of the negotiation table, one who will do the right thing for the child which usually means keeping a parental relationship alive with the absent parent.
Nothing glib about that; however the "choosing a responsible life partner" phrase is a bit confusing to me. I sure don't know how one predicts a complex future especially at age 24. My ex was mentally ill, a fact which neither of us knew when we met. Looking back on it, our relationship was doomed before we met due to the grievous abuse she went through as a child. And, as in all things, one person's "best for the family" is another's worst. That's why there are laws and family court.
Had I had legal recognition as the other parent, I would have been able to get custody and raise my daughter in a sane environment. Government recognition is a back-up when things go awry as they often do - it's a no-fault thing. Long story; she was diagnosed 5 years after we separated; spent several years getting treatment, and is actually fine today. The impacts on our daughter continue. Life is difficult sometimes... I hope no one every has to go through what I did, and I particularly hope no child ever has to go through the years of insanity that our daughter went through.
That would be bae. He hasn't yet returned from exile.
I get the confusion though, I understand we all look alike. >8)
Right-bae. Hmmm... wonder what happened to him? Well - other than the identity confusion... I've not heard your reflections on my commentary. I am interested.
I'm still in the camp that would like to make a legal distinction between a civil union and a marriage. We've talked about it enough, I'm just not sure what the hold up is. A civil union between two consenting adults should convey all the benefits that currently get lumped in with marriage. Social security benefits, retirement, division of assets if the union dissolves, child support and visitation if the couple had children, insurance benefits, end of life issues and on and on. It should be a legal partnership that provides for sharing those benefits as well as the responsibilities. A relatively simple contract between two adults without any consideration of sex, color, height, shoe size, etc. The only place the government needs to be involved would be to insure the most basic rules are followed (blood tests, close relatives, age requirements met, etc.). Not particularly romantic, but not intended to be.
Marriage itself can remain in the realm of the churches, where it should be. It can continue as a joining of two people in the eyes of God/Allah/Buddha, whichever they follow. The church can decided whether or not to recognize same sex marriages without guidance from the government. Any couple that values the religious aspect of marriage would have completely free reign to make that bond limited only by their choice of religious venues. It would be something that can be added over and above the more businesslike aspect of a civil union.
Gregg, I think your ideas sound very reasonable and logical. I agree.
Right-bae. Hmmm... wonder what happened to him?
He ruffled a few feathers and was expelled from the coop. Pecking orders must be maintained.
I've not heard your reflections on my commentary. I am interested.
Your commentary reflects, to me, a desire to enjoy all the benefits (and I do mean benefits, not rights) of a traditional marriage outside the traditional definition of a marriage. That's fine, I understand that.
It also reflects a desire to have non-traditional relationships enjoy the same social and cultural approval that a traditional marriage enjoys. I understand that as well.
What I don't understand is why any one person or group believes that they are entitled to someone else's acceptance and approval.
Your commentary reflects, to me, a desire to enjoy all the benefits (and I do mean benefits, not rights) of a traditional marriage outside the traditional definition of a marriage. That's fine, I understand that.
It also reflects a desire to have non-traditional relationships enjoy the same social and cultural approval that a traditional marriage enjoys. I understand that as well.
What I don't understand is why any one person or group believes that they are entitled to someone else's acceptance and approval.
Interesting... what specifically did I say that leads you to this opinion? I'm confused about what you mean by the rights/responsibilities statement. What do you see as the responsibilities of marriage? I think you & I share the belief implicit in your statement that rights and responsibilities both come with legal standing.
Perhaps I don't understand what traditions you're referencing when you use the phrase traditional marriage. Would you be willing to explain what your view of traditional marriage is? I suspect we have differing opinions on that matter! I don't come from a religious tradition in my family. I've certainly heard many variations on what traditional means in marriage as I have this conversation with folks.
About your second point... I actually don't hold the belief that any one person or group is entitled to someone else's acceptance and approval, as I don't believe that's possible on the individual level, which is what I take it you mean by the use of the word 'someone'. Acceptance & approval by individuals is a relational experience that is created over time between individuals.
However, I do believe that social/cultural acceptance of behavioral norms are influenced and supported by the establishment of legal standards. Seatbelts comes to mind. Laws and social behavior co-arise, and co-influence one another; human behavior is not a linear process. Laws formally codify behavior, and behavior changes in response to laws. Obviously, there are always those who choose to not comply with laws or social norms - each of us has a personal example, I am sure.
Social norms and laws change over time as well. Legal civil marriage for same-gender couples is poised to become law around the country; IMHO it will be both the law and social norm is 20 years.
Thanks for the convo. Always interesting!
Interesting... what specifically did I say that leads you to this opinion? I'm confused about what you mean by the rights/responsibilities statement. What do you see as the responsibilities of marriage? I think you & I share the belief implicit in your statement that rights and responsibilities both come with legal standing.
I didn't actually say anything about rights/responsibilities. I referenced a desire to receive benefits from others and government. The benefits of acceptance and legal standing.
Perhaps I don't understand what traditions you're referencing when you use the phrase traditional marriage. Would you be willing to explain what your view of traditional marriage is? I suspect we have differing opinions on that matter! I don't come from a religious tradition in my family. I've certainly heard many variations on what traditional means in marriage as I have this conversation with folks.
When I say "traditional marriage", I'm referencing the traditional definition of "one man, one woman".
About your second point... I actually don't hold the belief that any one person or group is entitled to someone else's acceptance and approval, as I don't believe that's possible on the individual level, which is what I take it you mean by the use of the word 'someone'. Acceptance & approval by individuals is a relational experience that is created over time between individuals.
You may not believe that any one person or group is entitled to someone else's acceptance and approval, although I think you'd have to admit that, here and elsewhere, the prevailing view is that anyone who doesn't approve or accept the "right" to same sex marriage is a bigoted homophobe akin to the worst racists the world has ever seen.
However, I do believe that social/cultural acceptance of behavioral norms are influenced and supported by the establishment of legal standards. Seatbelts comes to mind. Laws and social behavior co-arise, and co-influence one another; human behavior is not a linear process. Laws formally codify behavior, and behavior changes in response to laws. Obviously, there are always those who choose to not comply with laws or social norms - each of us has a personal example, I am sure.
I agree, social/cultural acceptance of behavior is influenced by legal standards, as well as social influences such as popular media, and peer pressure from friends/family/authority figures. I believe any special interest group can change the world in virtually any way by lobbying/proselytizing/demeaning or otherwise influencing people, making them afraid to resist that change. I'm not saying that's what's happening in the same sex marriage debate, but there are certainly elements of it at work.
Social norms and laws change over time as well. Legal civil marriage for same-gender couples is poised to become law around the country; IMHO it will be both the law and social norm is 20 years.
You're right, and part of the reason is that it will likely become a crime to publicly express any thought or opinion that may be considered an assault on some protected group's dignity, as has already happened in many parts of the world.
He ruffled a few feathers and was expelled from the coop. Pecking orders must be maintained.
To be clear, bae is still a valuable member of this community who's posts and insight will be welcomed in any thread at any time he wishes to post.
Is "traditional marriage" the one where that man owns the woman and she's essentially chattel? The one where he can beat her at will and kill her with impunity if he should find her in what he considers a compromising position? It was that way for centuries--and still is in many parts of the world--so that makes it traditional in my book. Polygamy is another traditional form of marriage.
When the idea of gay marriage began to be widely floated, I--in my naivete--couldn't see why it was necessary. Being just about as interested in marriage law as I am in applied hydraulics, I wasn't aware how many rights and privileges state-sanctioned unions incur. I agree that civil unions should be the norm, with those so inclined adding the fillip of a religious ceremony.
Is "traditional marriage" the one where that man owns the woman and she's essentially chattel? The one where he can beat her at will and kill her with impunity if he should find her in what he considers a compromising position? It was that way for centuries--and still is in many parts of the world--so that makes it traditional in my book. Polygamy is another traditional form of marriage.
This summed one of my buttons very well - taking a label (for example "traditional") and then redefining what it means or hyper-focusing on one aspect of it and and ignoring the rest.
The gender of those marrying is just one aspect - having a man-woman marriage does not, in itself, make it a "traditional" marriage.
Doesn't everyone deserve equal protection?
Everyone has equal protection. Everyone enjoys the same rights and privileges as long as they adhere to the same criteria. What we're doing now is to change the criteria. It is not discrimination, it is not a violation of anyone's rights.
Most of the issues you've raised can be taken care of through legal proceedings available to everyone, with only federal benefits & entitlements being a valid sticking point.
Change the criteria then........big deal.
And that's the sticking point. It is a big deal.
Everyone has equal protection. Everyone enjoys the same rights and privileges as long as they adhere to the same criteria. What we're doing now is to change the criteria. It is not discrimination, it is not a violation of anyone's rights.
Most of the issues you've raised can be taken care of through legal proceedings available to everyone, with only federal benefits & entitlements being a valid sticking point.
We've change the criteria quite a bit in this country over the past 230 years or so. It was a big deal. Should it not have happened?
On legal proceedings - I don't think having one couple filing paperwork and doing court time and spending a lot of money over a ton of issues, and having another couple file a single paper for $50 (or whatever the fee is for a marriage license) constitutes the same rights and privileges.
We've change the criteria quite a bit in this country over the past 230 years or so. It was a big deal. Should it not have happened?
On legal proceedings - I don't think having one couple filing paperwork and doing court time and spending a lot of money over a ton of issues, and having another couple file a single paper for $50 (or whatever the fee is for a marriage license) constitutes the same rights and privileges.
You're missing the point and mis-representing the challenge. Under a domestic partnership arrangement you'd just file a form and attest to it's accuracy. If all you want is "the same rights and privileges", why wouldn't that suffice?
You're missing the point and mis-representing the challenge. Under a domestic partnership arrangement you'd just file a form and attest to it's accuracy. If all you want is "the same rights and privileges", why wouldn't that suffice?
because they aren't the same rights and privileges.
This from Wikipedia:
"The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obligated to recognize them"
"Section 3 of the law (DOMA)—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010.[1][2] This decision was appealed in October 2010.[3] On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would cease legal defense of the Act's Section 3 at the direction of President Barack Obama, who had reached a conclusion that Section 3 was unconstitutional.[4] However, Congress may defend the law in court in place of the administration, and on March 4, 2011, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he was taking steps to defend Section 3 in place of the Department of Justice.[5] Additionally, the administration intends to enforce the law "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."
This from the Huffington Post dated June 25th, 2011:
"The fact is that once our LGBT friends and family are legally able to marry here in New York, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will prohibit them from enjoying over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that are afforded straight married couples."
I fully support a church or religion's right to narrow the scope and definition of what marriage is. Heck, I'd be ok if the limit the definition of marriage to a religious marriage.
But, with the mounds of property, contract, and civil law we have, much less the huge precedence for business law and contracts, I can't see a solid reason for the federal government to be in the marriage business at all.
I fully support a church or religion's right to narrow the scope and definition of what marriage is. Heck, I'd be ok if the limit the definition of marriage to a religious marriage.
But, with the mounds of property, contract, and civil law we have, much less the huge precedence for business law and contracts, I can't see a solid reason for the federal government to be in the marriage business at all.
The government (state and fed) offer benefits to legally married people. By defining legal marriage by DOMA, the feds in essense limit those legal rights ONLY to straight couples. A church marriage doesn't really define the "legal" issues of marriage. A Church marriage still requires that you get a marriage license from your state. That license is what makes ALL marriages - and the legal rights and responsibilities that make up marriage - welll... legal. The church marriage is just ceremonial if you don't have a licesnse to back it up. I personally feel that any religious organization should be able to decide if they want to preform that ceremony or not and that the state or federal government should not force them to preform them. If their beliefs are against a same sex marriage, then they shouldn't have to have them. BUT, "civil services" and the issuing of marriage licenses should be allowed for same sex marriages as well as opposite sex ones.
One of the requirerments for a "marriage" to be legal is that it a marriage license issued in one state is recognized as legal in all states: "marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution."
This is not the case in same-sex marriages and one HUIGE reason why it's important for the Feds, and not just individual states, to be involved in making policy with regards to same sex marriages.
The government (state and fed) offer benefits to legally married people. By defining legal marriage by DOMA, the feds in essense limit those legal rights ONLY to straight couples.
As I said, I don't see why they're in the marriage business at all. There would be no DOMA and no fed benefits if there was no need for marriage law separate from our other existing contract law.
I fully support a church or religion's right to narrow the scope and definition of what marriage is. Heck, I'd be ok if the limit the definition of marriage to a religious marriage.
But, with the mounds of property, contract, and civil law we have, much less the huge precedence for business law and contracts, I can't see a solid reason for the federal government to be in the marriage business at all.
Actually, I think RELIGION should be out of the marriage business. Churches can't give you SS benefits, right of inheritance, and all the other 998 LEGAL rights that come with marriage, so they shouldn't be able to Wham Bam Amen grant legal status to anyone.
I say everyone get the legal marriage ceremony through a JP, then the ceremony, or not, of their choice.
Marriage, in this modern society, is THE way to legitimate legal status. You don't need it to live together or have kids, or even be accepted as a couple. We don't need marriage to appease decent society and all that acceptance goes with. No, gay couples don't want marriage just to 'force' society acceptance. They have that, as least from the people who count. They want the full legal protections, and acceptance by the legal community.
Legal same sex marriage won't change the attitudes or acceptance of closed minded bigots (in my opinion) but I think gays can live with that.
Get religion out of marriage. Separation of church and state!
As I said, I don't see why they're in the marriage business at all. There would be no DOMA and no fed benefits if there was no need for marriage law separate from our other existing contract law.
I agree. The same could be said of the state marriage laws. You could get rid of "marriage" as a "legal" entity all together and replace ALL marriages with civil legal contracts. Could even use that for platonic relationships with friends who you may share property and a joint life with so that they could enjoy all the state and federal benefits (as well as the responsibilities) of our current marriage laws. Don't think that would go over well but it's an idea :-)! I know several people in platonic relationships who would like to see their friend, rather than their family, have the right to make medical decsions for them, put them on their health insurance policy and file taxes jointly, leave them in their will with out the ability for family to contest it, have them be able to keep legal custody of a child that isn't biologically theirs, enjoy the estate tax breaks if they die, etc... Lots of established "laws" in those marriage, divorce, and family laws.
You're missing the point and mis-representing the challenge. Under a domestic partnership arrangement you'd just file a form and attest to it's accuracy. If all you want is "the same rights and privileges", why wouldn't that suffice?
If it's that way for everyone, sure. I would counter that with the state doing domestic partnerships, why should it be involved in marriage? Why not just have one form?
You're missing the point and mis-representing the challenge. Under a domestic partnership arrangement you'd just file a form and attest to it's accuracy. If all you want is "the same rights and privileges", why wouldn't that suffice?
Fine, if we change the 1,000+ federal laws that mention marriage to say "civil unions" and then pass a federal law that says that "civil unions" in one state shall be honored by the several other states then I'd be fine with this. Under the current situation people who get married in one state are married in all states. People who get civil unionized in one state are not necessarily civil unionized in any other state.
And even the additional paperwork such as durable powers of medical attorney differ from one state to another and may not be accepted when a couple is out of state. That's exactly what happened to an out of state lesbian couple in Florida not too many years ago. While one partner lay dying the other, along with their children, appropriate paperwork (but from out-of-state) in hand, was arguing with various hospital personnel for almost 8 hours before they were finally allowed to visit their dying family member. Examples like this make clear to me why the only acceptable answer is to allow marriage to any adult couple regardless of the sex of the two participants.
As others have mentioned marriage has changed over the years, generally in concert with our changing concept/acceptance of the civil rights of the participants. At one point the wife was considered property of her husband. Until relatively recently interracial couples couldn't marry in some states. But as societal acceptance of women and blacks as equals to white males in the deserving of human rights came about changes in what was considered acceptable for marriage also came about. Allowing people to marry someone of the same sex is certainly a change. But it's just another change in a long line of changes based on changes in the accepted civil rights of the participants and doesn't in any way destroy marriage anymore than allowing interacial couples to marry did.
loosechickens
7-2-11, 2:17am
Interesting to watch the evolution of views on this matter. I found this piece, by conservative David Frum interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/frum.gay.marriage/index.html?iref=obinsite
and was impressed by this point in his piece, which seems to illustrate what many of us are saying here in this thread about the trajectory from "absolutely horrible, unthinkable", to "why would anyone be upset about THAT?" :
But as for same-sex marriage, my attitude follows the trajectory described nearly 150 years ago by the English writer Anthony Trollope in his novel "Phineas Finn."
Two of his characters are discussing a proposed reform that has just been defeated in Parliament. The author of the reform is understandably dejected. His friend consoles him by pointing to the future:
"Many who before regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among the things probable; -- and so at last it will be ranged in the list of those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made."
my belief that in the area of marriage, gay people have always enjoyed the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. The debate over same sex marriage is more of an attempt to legislate acceptance rather than an issue of "rights".
Really, how? I am truly curious. I mean, my gay friends and relatives have to go through a lot of hoops to ensure inheritance - wills, power of attorney. Man, if I die, my husband doesn't have to go through that. He automatically inherits, with or without a will (though maybe not all of it, without). Also, there's that pesky thing about getting into an accident and being in the hospital and your partner not being "family" -not allowed to see you or make decisions on your behalf.
Of course, my gay friends aren't a couple per the IRS, so they can't file jointly. They cannot receive one another's social security payments in the event of a death. My husband is on my health insurance, but my gay friends cannot do that either. Oh, there are some companies around that will allow you to put your partner on if you register as a domestic partner, but not ours.
I'm not attached to the "marriage" word per se. In Denmark, it's an afterthought if it happens at all - then again, they take care of their citizens in a completely different manner, and large things like health insurance aren't tied to a job or a marriage to someone with the right job. I'd be happy to have one big bucket called "civil unions" that allow people to have all of the legal rights that we currently call "marriage", and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.
Actually gay couples with state recognition in the 3 community property states are indeed acknowledged by the IRS. Unfortunately it's yet another example of gay people having to jump through hoops that are not apparently required by straight couples simply because the IRS has not figured out how to deal with their own rule change to try and treat them equally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/us/12bcjames.html
Based on the US constitution the federal government has no standing to be involved in marriage. That's always been the province of states and was seemingly settled law until DOMA was passed. Repeal DOMA and this problem is solved. The IRS would simply need to change their forms to include space to list "spouse" regardless of the sex of either participant.
Before April 15 the best that turbo tax could tell my sister and her wife, California residents, was file an extension and we'll have this figured out in a couple of months, in the meantime use this excel spreadsheet to get started. Determined to do it herself, she spent 12 hours last weekend doing their relatively uncomplicated taxes. Obviously there must be some difference between the way gay married people are treated compared to straight married people, or this wouldn't/shouldn't be any more complicated than a community property state straight couple's taxes.
Actually gay couples with state recognition in the 3 community property states are indeed acknowledged by the IRS. Unfortunately it's yet another example of gay people having to jump through hoops that are not apparently required by straight couples simply because the IRS has not figured out how to deal with their own rule change to try and treat them equally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/us/12bcjames.html
Based on the US constitution the federal government has no standing to be involved in marriage. That's always been the province of states and was seemingly settled law until DOMA was passed. Repeal DOMA and this problem is solved. The IRS would simply need to change their forms to include space to list "spouse" regardless of the sex of either participant.
Before April 15 the best that turbo tax could tell my sister and her wife, California residents, was file an extension and we'll have this figured out in a couple of months, in the meantime use this excel spreadsheet to get started. Determined to do it herself, she spent 12 hours last weekend doing their relatively uncomplicated taxes. Obviously there must be some difference between the way gay married people are treated compared to straight married people, or this wouldn't/shouldn't be any more complicated than a community property state straight couple's taxes.
But it goes beyond federal tax issues. One of the requirerments for a "marriage" to be legal is that a marriage license issued in one state is recognized as legal in all states: "marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution." The feds either need to repeal DOMA as you said, or they need to recognize gay marriage as a legally binding entity on equal par with striaght marriage in order to enforce this clause of the consituation. I can't imagine that straight married couples would want to see their marriages become "null and void" everytime they move to another state. I think gay marriages should have that same right to see their marriages held up as legal and binding in all states. As a straight person, when I got married I never even thought about the legallity of my marriage in different states even though I was a resident of Calif, living in Maine, marrying a resident of New York who was living in Lousiana - because there was no legal issue since, by consituational clause, I was considered legally married in ALL states. This would not be the case under any current gay marriage laws or domestic partner laws. So that constituional clause would probably have to be amended removing the "marriage between a man and a woman" part as well as repealing DOMA to make gay and straight marriages equal.
Alan, it's not an either-or proposition. It's legal protections AND the cultural significance. Neither can be separated, as both are a part of the human experience. In my life experience, the legal assurances were more important to me than the cultural acceptance, because I lived in a community that accepted me (Lopez island - your neighbor!) as I was.
I would imagine that on the continuum of legal rights at one end and social acceptance at the other, every Queer couple & family would be at a different place on that continuum every day depending upon their life experiences at the moment. Social acceptance may be more important at Grandma's 80th birthday party, and legal rights more so in a hospital ER.
What heterosexual couples (married or not) take for granted - like a fish in water - Queer couples have to think through, agonize over, hire an expensive attorney (if they can afford it) to draft dubious legal assurances, which cover a fraction of the rights presumed by heterosexual standing and tradition which is legal marriage. It's exhausting, and definitely communicates second class status at every turn.
Our society has been through this before; women used to be rendered as property when married, and agitated for legal standing within the institution. Biracial couples were outlawed and defied that despite the sometimes horrific consequences. Society grows, changes, adapts; and rather awkwardly. The transition to legal marriage for same gender couples will happen, the social norms that have been evolving will continue to do so; some people will likely never understand same gender couples just as some people never understand biracial couples. Nonetheless, legal marriage is a sensible next step.
This, this, this! Especially the point you make about things that heterosexual couples take for granted and just expect. For example, I would expect to be contacted should my partner end up in hospital and expect to be able to visit him. Why should sexual orientation matter in a situation of such gravity?
Spartana, what you talk about is exactly what people like Alan don't seem to understand. When a straight couple get married they immediately assume that their marriage will be accepted in every other state in our union. When a gay couple gets married that's not the case. Countless examples, such as the one I pointed out in Miami show this in glaring clarity. An equally glaring example is that plenty of states allow non-adults to get married if their parents authorize it. Every single other state in this country will honor that marriage even if they will not recognize such a marriage if it took place in their state. For example, a straight couple from massachusetts where the boy is 14 and the girl 12 but their parents approved of the marriage will have more standing than my aforementioned 30-something lesbian couple who had the extreme misfortune of being in Florida when one of them started dying. Annete Funnicello would probably be proud.
Spartana, what you talk about is exactly what people like Alan don't seem to understand.
Yeah, people like me are just dense.
Yeah, people like me are just dense.
From my perspective you understand just fine, you just appear unwilling to concede there is any issue here. Which is your choice to make.
Spartana, what you talk about is exactly what people like Alan don't seem to understand. When a straight couple get married they immediately assume that their marriage will be accepted in every other state in our union. When a gay couple gets married that's not the case. Countless examples, such as the one I pointed out in Miami show this in glaring clarity. An equally glaring example is that plenty of states allow non-adults to get married if their parents authorize it. Every single other state in this country will honor that marriage even if they will not recognize such a marriage if it took place in their state. For example, a straight couple from massachusetts where the boy is 14 and the girl 12 but their parents approved of the marriage will have more standing than my aforementioned 30-something lesbian couple who had the extreme misfortune of being in Florida when one of them started dying. Annete Funnicello would probably be proud.
Well even Alan is entitled to his own opinion :devil::devil: ha ha!
There are other things to consider too: The Federal Government is a huge employer and that, by not recognizing gay marriage at the federal level even if your marriage is legal in your state, federal employees will not be entitled to the spousal benefits that married heterosexual couples are. No health or death or pension benefits, etc... The same for members of the military who can legally marry in their state (has the "don't ask, don't tell policy been lifted yet or would a military member in a gay marriage - even to a civilian - get booted out of the military?). They can't get any of the benefits that a spouse of a military person is entitled to. Lots of other things too. But just the fact that you can't transfer the legality of a marriage (as well as the family law and divorce law) between states at this time is huge to me. Like I said above, when I got married I was a Calif resident stationed in Maine marrying a New York resident stationed in Lousiana and we married in Nevada which is where our marriage license was issued. We were both in the service at the time but our marriage was recognize by both the federal government and the military, as well as legal in all states. We were each entitled to all the spousal benefits and entitlements, as well as all the legal requirements of family and divorce law too, of the Fed gov, the US military and all the states. That's a biggie to me.
iris lily
7-12-11, 10:36pm
Well even Alan is entitled to his own opinion :devil::devil: ha ha!
There are other things to consider too: The Federal Government is a huge employer and that, by not recognizing gay marriage at the federal level even if your marriage is legal in your state, federal employees will not be entitled to the spousal benefits that married heterosexual couples are. No health or death or pension benefits, etc... The same for members of the military who can legally marry in their state (has the "don't ask, don't tell policy been lifted yet or would a military member in a gay marriage - even to a civilian - get booted out of the military?). They can't get any of the benefits that a spouse of a military person is entitled to. Lots of other things too. But just the fact that you can't transfer the legality of a marriage (as well as the family law and divorce law) between states at this time is huge to me. Like I said above, when I got married I was a Calif resident stationed in Maine marrying a New York resident stationed in Lousiana and we married in Nevada which is where our marriage license was issued. We were both in the service at the time but our marriage was recognize by both the federal government and the military, as well as legal in all states. We were each entitled to all the spousal benefits and entitlements, as well as all the legal requirements of family and divorce law too, of the Fed gov, the US military and all the states. That's a biggie to me.
Alan hasn't been around for a while, hope he's not been disappeared too.
Glad that you raised that cost issue. I've raised that on other boards where discussion on this topic is less one sided.
But of course the rejoinder to your point is: but it's the right thing to do (implicit is this sentiment: hang the cost.)
Alan hasn't been around for a while, hope he's not been disappeared too.
Nope, I'm around, just been travelling a bit recently. Back home tonight with a freshly fractured rib and some pretty cool pain meds. Better watch what I post or I'll sound like Beststash.
To be honest though, I'm a little burnt out on subjects such as this one. People seem to believe that it they want something, they should have a "right" to it and anyone who doesn't jump on the emotional "I'm being discriminated against" bandwagon is considered to be some sort of racist, homophobe, wingnut. It's tiring!
...racist, homophobe, wingnut. It's tiring!
So is homophobia, racism & general wing-nut-ism!
Hope you heal quickly. Blessings!
OK Alan, how did you do it? Inquiring minds want to know!
Alan hasn't been around for a while, hope he's not been disappeared too.
Glad that you raised that cost issue. I've raised that on other boards where discussion on this topic is less one sided.
But of course the rejoinder to your point is: but it's the right thing to do (implicit is this sentiment: hang the cost.)
Er... cost? I don't think I meantioned "cost" anywhere in my post, just "benefits" that heterosexual married couples are entitled too that gay married couples aren't. I think you've been sniffing something more then your Iris' and Lillys Iris Lilly :laff: .
Sorry to hear you're busted up Alan (you shouldn't be dancing on top of bars in those raunchy Honkytonks ya' know ;-)!). And for what it's worth, I enjoy your opinions - and the intelligent and thoughtful way you present them - even if I don't always agree.
OK Alan, how did you do it? Inquiring minds want to know!
It was a multi-stage process. We've been running around the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina, doing a little hiking and then riding the motorcycle on some of the more twisty roads. On Sunday, I slipped and fell while hiking at Linville Falls. I think that resulted in a hairline break, a little uncomfortable, but nothing to slow us down too much. Yesterday, while loading the motorcycle onto it's trailer in preparation for moving a couple hundred miles further down the parkway, I apparently strained myself sufficiently to complete the break.
We came home early and last night I got it x-rayed which confirmed a fracture. Now I get to sit around in a light headed state for a few days while it heals.
It was a multi-stage process. We've been running around the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina, doing a little hiking and then riding the motorcycle on some of the more twisty roads. On Sunday, I slipped and fell while hiking at Linville Falls. I think that resulted in a hairline break, a little uncomfortable, but nothing to slow us down too much. Yesterday, while loading the motorcycle onto it's trailer in preparation for moving a couple hundred miles further down the parkway, I apparently strained myself sufficiently to complete the break.
We came home early and last night I got it x-rayed which confirmed a fracture. Now I get to sit around in a light headed state for a few days while it heals.
Ouch, I hate it when that happens. Sleeping with a broken rib is awful, good luck and hope you heal quickly. Enjoy the light-headed state as much as possible. I recommend Cruzan Rum and Coke - lay off the weed it will make you laugh (and that hurts)!!
Peace
It was a multi-stage process. We've been running around the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina, doing a little hiking and then riding the motorcycle on some of the more twisty roads. On Sunday, I slipped and fell while hiking at Linville Falls. I think that resulted in a hairline break, a little uncomfortable, but nothing to slow us down too much. Yesterday, while loading the motorcycle onto it's trailer in preparation for moving a couple hundred miles further down the parkway, I apparently strained myself sufficiently to complete the break.
We came home early and last night I got it x-rayed which confirmed a fracture. Now I get to sit around in a light headed state for a few days while it heals.
Oh ouch! Sorry guy. To break a rib and have to cut short your vacation is the pits. Relax and take care of yourself.
loosechickens
7-13-11, 8:25pm
I SWEAR, it wasn't we liberals here on the forums, sticking pins in your virtual voodoo doll!
Sorry to hear that your trip got cut short, Alan, AND that you're hurting. From experience, I can advise, whatever you do, DON'T SNEEZE!!!!!
Hope you're feeling better soon. ;-)
Er... cost? I don't think I meantioned "cost" anywhere in my post, just "benefits" that heterosexual married couples are entitled too that gay married couples aren't. I think you've been sniffing something more then your Iris' and Lillys Iris Lilly :laff: .
Now really, you are a practical girl. How can you bring up gooberment benefits, even MORE gooberment benefits, and not relate them to cost?
Do ya think this week is a really good time to promote yet more gooberment benefits/costs ?
I do not.
Government benefits doesn't necessarily mean government expense. I think she meant government benefits as in legal benefits that the government protects/recognizes.
Government benefits doesn't necessarily mean government expense. I think she meant government benefits as in legal benefits that the government protects/recognizes.
Yes ma'am that's what I meant. I just wanted to show another inequity (sp?) between straight and gay marriage. I guess you could say that a gay couple, who probably have less kids overall, would have LESS of a financial impact on govmint finances than federal employees or military members who have oodles and oodles of kids who are entitled to that federal health insurance and miltary housing allowances and increased pensions if you have dependant children. And anyways that doesn't matter - you can't say that you don't want to allow gay marriage at the federal level to be legal because of the cost anymore than you can say that no federal employee or military member is allowed to have more than one child because of the cost. What you can say is that you find gay marriage immoral or that you want to protect "traditional" marriage and family. That is really the only arguement against allowing gay marriage to be on equal footing with straight marriage. And since morality is based on a persons ethics and feelings and beliefs, it basicly comes down to that rather than all the equal rights and constitutionality of this issue for an individual's opinion on the subject.
... you can't say that you don't want to allow gay marriage at the federal level to be legal because of the cost anymore than you can say that no federal employee or military member is allowed to have more than one child because of the cost...
Yes I can. We can't afford to pay out more. We simply cannot afford it. So, stop giving benefits to new join ups with more than 1 or 2 kids. Fine with me.
And I'm sorry lindi that you will not be on my Scots-American boat steering toward financial responsibility for this country. :( I'd prefer to keep Californians off the boat anyway but would have made an exception for you!
There are a fair sight more practical and big ticket items we could axe from the federal budget. Denying civil rights benes to an entire class of people simply for a cost savings is unethical. Let's start by actually accounting for the insane war costs, then stop paying for those wars.
Yes I can. We can't afford to pay out more. We simply cannot afford it. So, stop giving benefits to new join ups with more than 1 or 2 kids. Fine with me.
And I'm sorry lindi that you will not be on my Scots-American boat steering toward financial responsibility for this country. :( I'd prefer to keep Californians off the boat anyway but would have made an exception for you!
Well I have been planning to adopt at least 10 kids from China just so that I can increase my Veterans Benefits - I would get extra moolah for each child :-)! Oh, and being that I'm a po' disabled miltary veteran who can't afford to pay for my 10 kids, I of course would be applying for every govmint program there is to support us all. That's my early retirement plan and you're foiling it dern you ;-)!!!! Well I'll come along with you on your voyage, heck I'll even bring my old govmint issued .50 Cal to protect you from those thieving pirates (er.. democrats and Californias alike) out on the high seas to financial independance.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.