I'm not that familiar with the American Family Association so I'm curious. You're implying that they are "trying to get laws passed to infringe on their rights". May I ask which "rights" they're attempting to infringe upon?Originally Posted by loosechickens
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well Alan, actually being sub-standard humans, they don't actually enjoy all the rights we 'normal' folk get. At least not in all states. They can't get married in most states and the AFA is trying to keep it that way as well as reverse the right in the states that do recognize the fully 'humanness' of gays. They also advocate arresting gays cause there are still laws on the books against sodomy because, of course, what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms is the governments business. If you're gay that is.
So, in a way you're right in that they aren't infringing on real 'rights' cause they don't really exist, if you're gay.
EQUALITY FOR ALL!! Well, no, not really. Just kidding.
I would say generally the inherent rights to a safe and secure environment within which we can raise our children, hold jobs, and live our lives. The rights of Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness.
So, if I wanted to marry my sister or perhaps my neighbors wife, that would be the same thing wouldn't it? Not allowing me to do so would be a violation of my "rights" since my neighbor had the right to marry his wife and virtually every other male on the planet would enjoy the right to marry my sister.
Granted, I don't actually want to do either of those things, but if I did, are my "rights" actually being violated? And would I be correct in labeling anyone who disagreed with me as a "hater" or a "hate group"? I'm just trying to understand this whole argument of "rights".
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I have some confusion on this...gay people do what they want in their bedrooms, heterosexual people do what they want in their bedrooms...its all about what people do in their bedrooms right? so who is stopping that?
Here's a short list - I've seen several references that there is on the order of 1400 "rights" conveyed by legal marriage:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
In terms of the state, marriage is a legal economic entity - denying it to same sex couples would be akin to denying homosexuals the right to form corporations or partnerships.
Last edited by creaker; 6-16-11 at 8:40am.
All of the things you have listed above can generally be handled through legal channels other than the proviso of marriage. Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally. I'm going to step on a lot of toes here but I think this hysteria is caused by a few reasons: 1. Politicians see gays as a voting block hence creating issues where there are none to create a rallying cry and a venue for promises of rewards for votes. (Gay community is being shamelessly hustled and used by policiticans). 2. In a further effort to create a "minority" status for gays, politicians are exploiting gays and their issues. As far as I know gay people come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Sexual preference does not a minority make. If that were the case foot-fetishists could have their own minority status, etc. etc.
Personally I think the state should not be involved in marriage at all - it's clearly a religious institution and if as you say that the legal side can "generally" be handled through legal channels (it's only fair to have all people jump through the same hoops), there's no real reason for the state to be involved. It would also remove all politics from the issue.
On the other hand, I think civil unions are a great idea - like a corporation all the legal details are spelled out and attached to a simple label. Rather than bringing your box of legal paperwork to the hospital to try to prove to their legal department why you should be allowed to see your dying partner.
"Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally." I guess the difference there is that they had the choice.
Last edited by creaker; 6-16-11 at 10:11am.
++1
Amen Brother Creaker.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote