I am more disturbed

[Miss Jasmine]

See this is why I am torn...I read stories like Rick's and Dakota Lynn's. Everyone is entitled to happiness and love. Jesus loves all of His children. But then there is the bible saying it is wrong. UGH. I do believe that domestic partners should at the very least have the same protections that I do such as being covered under my spouse's insurance, the right to make medical decisions, in the case of death the right to property, etc.

I could babble on, but why bother.

 

[LoraJ]

Standing ovation for Dakota!

And Rick, your wedding plans sound amazing! Less than a year away.

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by Christine
RM,
The evangelical, religious right has taken over. We'll be in burkas in no time at all.

No, but they might make us all wear makeup like Tammy Faye Baker (that's a joke just in case anyone chooses to take this seriously).

 

[BuckNaked]

arminnie

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by arminnie
No, but they might make us all wear makeup like Tammy Faye Baker (that's a joke just in case anyone chooses to take this seriously).

arminnie--definitely taken as a joke, as I hope my "burka" statement was also.

 

[CheshireVal]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
See this is why I am torn...I read stories like Rick's and Dakota Lynn's. Everyone is entitled to happiness and love. Jesus loves all of His children. But then there is the bible saying it is wrong. UGH. I do believe that domestic partners should at the very least have the same protections that I do such as being covered under my spouse's insurance, the right to make medical decisions, in the case of death the right to property, etc.

I could babble on, but why bother.

I totally understand the thing about the Bible. But I think the point a lot of us are making is that maybe the Bible says it's wrong, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the government should say it's wrong.

If we're supposed to have separation of chruch and state, then the government has no right to legislate religious morality on the country.

Then again, the Sunday liquor laws are kind of evidence that church and state isn't entirely separated. Yet.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Originally posted by CheshireVal
I totally understand the thing about the Bible. But I think the point a lot of us are making is that maybe the Bible says it's wrong, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the government should say it's wrong.

I understand this argument, but people vote based on their beliefs. Just as you believe the government should not intrude in this decision, others believe it should. And me, well I don't know how I would vote. I am being totally honest. I guess I may be one of those compassionate conservatives.

 

[Maleficent13]

Can I ask a pretty straight-forward question to those who say "The Bible says it's wrong"? Let's say for a moment that I stipulate that, and agree that the Bible does say it's wrong. What does that have to do with you or anyone else? Isn't that between the person practising that behavior and God? Certainly it's not a state issue? I really don't understand this; I'm not trying to be difficult.

One more point:

They can, at any point, make each other the legal/health DPOA of each other and then that won't happen.

Not true. My best friend's partner's mother took the DPOA to court and had it overturned. My friend was not allowed to see her partner of 15 years before she died of a long-term illness. If it hadn't been for me forcing our way into the funeral, she may not have be allowed to attend that either (funeral directors were instucted to bar her entrance). Fortunately, the mother understood I was perfectly prepared to make a very loud and embarrassing scene if we weren't allowed to sit down.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the only union the courts put any stock in is marriage, regardless of wills, DPOAs, contracts, etc.

 

[meandtheguys2]

Originally posted by CheshireVal
I totally understand the thing about the Bible. But I think the point a lot of us are making is that maybe the Bible says it's wrong, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the government should say it's wrong.

If we're supposed to have separation of chruch and state, then the government has no right to legislate religious morality on the country.

Then again, the Sunday liquor laws are kind of evidence that church and state isn't entirely separated. Yet.

So, then what should we base our laws on? I def. see your point, but do not know whose belief systems the laws should follow. Does that make sense? The laws will be based on someone's system and there will always be people who disagree.

I voted "no" on amendment 1, but I have isssues with our local uninversity giving ins. and such to homosexual partners who have been together for 6 months. (The current plan being implemented.) I think that is wrong. UNLESS the same is offered to heterosexual couples.

 

[CheshireVal]

then what should we base our laws on? I def. see your point, but do not know whose belief systems the laws should follow. Does that make sense? The laws will be based on someone's system and there will always be people who disagree.

I voted "no" on amendment 1, but I have isssues with our local uninversity giving ins. and such to homosexual partners who have been together for 6 months. (The current plan being implemented.) I think that is wrong. UNLESS the same is offered to heterosexual couples.

I think to a certain extent our laws are based on the original Ten Commandments. Killing, stealing, (to a certain extent) lying.... those things are illegal. However, things like that have a victim.

But homosexuality and gay marriage don't have victims. They're not hurting anyone. Why outlaw it?

I also don't think that partners who have been together only 6 months should have benefits, but if we agreed to let them marry, and provided only MARRIED couples with benefits, I think that would be absolutely fine. The problem with allowing benefits for "partners" is that it's hard to define what a partner is. Marriage is much easier. So let's give benefits to only married couples and that's the end of that. Except for the fact that gay marriage is now constitutionally banned.

There might be a few couples who hastily marry, but that can happen in the gay AND straight world. Just look at Britney Spears... Niki Hilton.

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
But regardless, I can tell you EXACTLY why they want validation. Besides the very obvious emotional reasons of wanting everybody to know that they're two committed adults in a monogamous relationship - they want it because they then can share health care benefits, they serve as spouses in any life insurance settlements, all other insurance policies, pension funds, social security, home ownership - all of those rights that heterosexual couples probably take for granted.

Here's my questions - Why should who you choose to have sex with determine any of these thing? Why is having a sexual relationship considered essential in defining a family unit?

I live with my father - we are NOT considered a family unit. How ridiculous is that. When my father is gone my sister and I will probably live together, but we will NOT be considered a family unit. This affects everything from insurance to gym memberships too.

A very close friend of mine in CA (who happened to be gay) was responsible for his mother (a single mom who had immigrated from another country). He did not like it that our company's benefits specifically excluded anyone that you were related to from being a domestic partner (which is pretty common for companies that offer domestic partner benefits).

One major bank in CA introduced benefits for family members that you were responsible for - and did not base the definition of family on sexual activity (nor did they preclude it either).

Some people are SO focused on obtaining absolute parity between gay and hetero relationships that they are missing the big picture. Families can be formed by loving people who care about each other and are committed to each other's welfare with and without sexual activity.

I guess in the end it's really all about money. Some people want benefits and others don't want to pay for them. I do find it ironic that there was far less push for gays to get married when the marriage penalty was so high.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Whether you want to believe it or not, the only union the courts put any stock in is marriage, regardless of wills, DPOAs, contracts, etc.

Allrighty then. For those of you saying marriage will be the only thing to guarantee the partner gets proper stuff after death of first partner, guess what? You are wrong, too. Case in point? Anne Big Blonde Bombshell (sorry, I totally lost the name at the last minute.......anyone help out my tired mind?)

 

[DisneyMomx7]

I never understood how a gay marriage or a gay civil union is going to destroy the sanctity of my marriage. You have people divorced many times or someone getting married and then divorcing after a few days and none of that effect my marriage. What ever happened to live and let live, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.

 

[bubie2.5]

Originally posted by 6_Time_Momma
Allrighty then. For those of you saying marriage will be the only thing to guarantee the partner gets proper stuff after death of first partner, guess what? You are wrong, too. Case in point? Anne Big Blonde Bombshell (sorry, I totally lost the name at the last minute.......anyone help out my tired mind?)

Civil unions will guarantee it, yes.

Anne just proved that bisexuality exists.

But since we're naming names, I think that the sanctity of marriage is very much protected by Britney-24-hour-Vegas-wedding-Spears. I guess a drunk teen has more rights than a couple with a 20 y/o monogamous relationship.

 

[meandtheguys2]

pretty sad, huh?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I think 6_Time_Momma was talking about Anna Nicole Smith. She didn't inheret the vast fortune she thought she would. The courts gave it to the husband's kids, thus proving that marriage does not guarantee all rights.

 

[septbride2002]

See this is why I am torn...I read stories like Rick's and Dakota Lynn's. Everyone is entitled to happiness and love. Jesus loves all of His children. But then there is the bible saying it is wrong. UGH. I do believe that domestic partners should at the very least have the same protections that I do such as being covered under my spouse's insurance, the right to make medical decisions, in the case of death the right to property, etc.

Miss Jasmine I can respect the position you are in since you and I have had many religious discussions. Let me ask you - if the government came into your home and said - you can no longer practice your faith how would you feel? If our government was to come in and ban the Christian faith all together - how would you feel? Now this would never happen because your freedom of religion is protected under the 1st ammendment. So why is it okay for Religion to come into the Government and say that lifestyle is not natural and therefore is stripped of any and all benefits that other married people have?

It is a two way street. If religion becomes to much of a focus in politics you will have people fleeing this country much like the pilgrims fled England. Or you will have an uprising.

~Amanda

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
I think 6_Time_Momma was talking about Anna Nicole Smith. She didn't inheret the vast fortune she thought she would. The courts gave it to the husband's kids, thus proving that marriage does not guarantee all rights.

Yes, that's it! Thanks. And I know there are other cases, too.

 

[septbride2002]

I think 6_Time_Momma was talking about Anna Nicole Smith. She didn't inheret the vast fortune she thought she would. The courts gave it to the husband's kids, thus proving that marriage does not guarantee all rights.

It was also proven that she married an 86 year old man when she was only 24. It was an unconventional marriage and I don't think the kids would have won anything had it not been for the fact that they painted her as a gold digger and also proved that she never took up residence where the old man lived.

~Amanda

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Originally posted by septbride2002
It was also proven that she married an 86 year old man when she was only 24. It was an unconventional marriage and I don't think the kids would have won anything had it not been for the fact that they painted her as a gold digger and also proved that she never took up residence where the old man lived.

~Amanda

First of all, if sex of married people should have no bearing, then neither should age. Second of all, there are other cases, I just don't have time to find them right now. Third of all, you don't think the family of a gay partner couldn't make the surviving partner look like a gold digger if they wanted too?

Marriage is no more of a guarantee than DPOA or guardianship or anything else.