Same-sex marriage

[bicker]

So what was the point (other than what was stated) of taking a class trip to see the mayor of SF perform a gay marriage? IMO, that goes a little beyond "a teachable moment".

What did the teacher answer when you asked him/her that question? I'd rather make sure my reply is consistent with his/her intent, than try to project, myself, which of the many possible benefits to offer to you.

 

[dejr_8]

Not at all. Marrying multiple people brings on a whole different set of legalities. Would there be a "primary wife" who gets to make health care decisions for the husband or do the wives vote? There are issues of survivorship, permission for the husband to marry an additional wife if the other wives don't agree, and are the wives married to each other or just the husband? Could there be multiple husbands and wives--which could wreak havoc on the whose child is whose issue. Divorce could be extraordinarily complex.

Sorry but this doesn't say why the "right" for three or more people to marry isn't in the constitution (federal or state). If the "right" is in the constitution for ANY TWO people to marry then that right must apply to ANY THREE (or more) people wishing to marry.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

I say outlaw ALL marriage!

 

[RickinNYC]

Sorry but this doesn't say why the "right" for three or more people to marry isn't in the constitution (federal or state). If the "right" is in the constitution for ANY TWO people to marry then that right must apply to ANY THREE (or more) people wishing to marry.

Just quoting myself:

Some will use legal doctrine. Others will blather on about "super" rights as opposed to EQUAL rights. And yet others will then state smugly that this will then lead to polygamy, and then underage marriage and on and on. What the hell, let's throw in bestiality just to make things even, eh? No matter your excuse, you're simply homophobic.

 

[Laura]

Sorry but this doesn't say why the "right" for three or more people to marry isn't in the constitution (federal or state). If the "right" is in the constitution for ANY TWO people to marry then that right must apply to ANY THREE (or more) people wishing to marry.

You're oversimplifying the issue; polygamous marriage is an entirely different set of laws--none of which you addressed. It's not as easy as changing two to three, no matter what you might think. Do all parties marry each other? Can a spouse take on more spouses without the first spouse's permission or even the first spouse's knowledge? The issue of consenting adults would have to be addressed, and the rights of the original spouse as well.

My state's constitution actually did not specify the sexes of the two people who could marry, and the folks who are freaked out about gay marriage got a constitutional amendment on the ballot 4 years ago to make sure gays couldn't marry.

 

[RickinNYC]

I say outlaw ALL marriage!

Nah. Unless there is physical or mental abuse involved, I think we should either force all couples who seek a divorce to remain together in the same household for at least 2 more years or just make divorce illegal.

 

[java]

Oh, and Joe and I just had our 18th anniversary this past Wednesday. 18 years of not being able to get "married" or "civil unioned" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Yet, the median duration in the US for those heterosexual marriages that end in divorce is just a little shy of 8 years. And only an average of 52% of all marriages in the US actually reach the 15th anniversary mark.

So the only ones out there that I'm aware of that are making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage are heterosexuals. We haven't had a chance to screw it all up yet.

Happy Anniversary. Ours(dh and I) was Monday 18 years too!

I personally don't have any gay friends that want to get "married". The ones that I know are looking for the benefits and rights. Please just a few years ago my friend was not able to be in the hospital recovery room for her partner of 15 years. family only. What makes a family? I live in NJ the land of "civil unions" same legal rights as Married couples have.

such strong feelings on a word. Marriage.

 

[Laura]

I'm not in favor of legalizing plural marriage, but I also haven't seen anyone post a valid argument against it.

When a person is a widow or widower, and so next of kin are two children, how are such decisions made?

Survivorship: See above.

Additional marriages: First, your statement presupposes polygamy, instead of perhaps polyandry or more free-form plural marriage (i.e., n husbands + m wives). Second, that's not a barrier, but just a question to answer, one way or another. I suspect that, should society ever go this direction (which I doubt, but I'm sure people in Rome thought that Christianity would never take off either) that the answer would be that all additional marriages would be mutual (unanimous) decisions of all spouses, together.

No more so than adultery does today, and there are no civil laws against that in most states.

Just by a differential amount, not orders of magnitude.

However, you're point is well-taken: Same-sex marriage adds absolutely no complications more than adoption does, while plural marriage would add a lot of additional complications.

It's not so much a matter of whether it's right, but whether it's feasible under current laws. I just think there are more hurdles to polygamy (polyandry is multiple husbands, polygyny is multiple wives) than dejr realizes, and the slope is not so slippery as it seems.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

Nah. Unless there is physical or mental abuse involved, I think we should either force all couples who seek a divorce to remain together in the same household for at least 2 more years or just make divorce illegal.

Now, RickinNYC, I'm usually right there with you. But, I have to disagree with you on this! No one should be trapped in a dead marriage. There are other perfectly acceptable reasons than physical or mental abuse that couples get divorced. Sometimes, people just grow apart. You shouldn't feel you are stuck in a marriage that started off as a fairy tale and turned into a poorly written B movie. Nor should a couple that has simply drifted apart be forced to demonize one another in court to prove abuse just to get a divorce.

Off my soapbox...

As for outlawing marriage, I was just kidding. I say marriage for any 2 consenting adults who want to get married!

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Sorry but this doesn't say why the "right" for three or more people to marry isn't in the constitution (federal or state). If the "right" is in the constitution for ANY TWO people to marry then that right must apply to ANY THREE (or more) people wishing to marry.

Another poster has already answered this, but I'll do so as well. Marriage is, ultimately, defined by law. There is no inherent right to marry in the constitution or otherwise for anyone. The government decides to recognize certain unions in order to make things easier on iteself (i.e. taxes, figuring out who a child's father is). However, the government is not going to bother recognizing marriage if it does not serve a useful purpose or, alternatively, if it could result in more problems than good.

So, we don't let children marry because we don't think they can make good decisions, we don't think they can care for themselves (let alone their own offspring) and it would create a greater hassel for the government if we did (because who else would be left to clean up after them?). For the exact same reason, we wouldn't let people marry animals (so all those folks saying gay marriage will lead to people marrying turtles are a little off).

We don't let men marry multiple women because it would only confuse the origin of any offspring from the union. Okay, sure, one father. But who's the mother? If the father dies, who's responsible for caring for the initial 18 years of the kid's life? And what becomes of the relationship between the wives? Are they each other's wives? If they don't work, who supports them now? Who get's the husband's death benefits? How does probate split up the estate? No, more than two makes for too many problems.

Now where's the governmental problem with two men (or two women) entering into a legally recognized union? They're adults who can care for themselves. If one has a child, or either adopts a child, then there is one other definitive parent to schlep the kid off on in case of catastrophe. I can think of one potential problem that would immediately arise for the government, they'd have to include a line for identifying sex on many important forms (like tax forms, for instance). However, in the long run, I think this is a pretty minor issue.

I'm happy to hear any arguments as to why the government would not want to allow two adult humans to voluntarily enter into a legal union?

 

[RickinNYC]

Now, RickinNYC, I'm usually right there with you. But, I have to disagree with you on this! No one should be trapped in a dead marriage. There are other perfectly acceptable reasons than physical or mental abuse that couples get divorced. Sometimes, people just grow apart. You shouldn't feel you are stuck in a marriage that started off as a fairy tale and turned into a poorly written B movie. Nor should a couple that has simply drifted apart be forced to demonize one another in court to prove abuse just to get a divorce.

Off my soapbox...

As for outlawing marriage, I was just kidding. I say marriage for any 2 consenting adults who want to get married!

pssst.... I was being sarcastic! My suggestion is just as inane/idiotic/moronic/plain ol' STUPID as the suggestions that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage.

 

[RickinNYC]

Now where's the governmental problem with two men (or two women) entering into a legally recognized union?

There are those that don't want it because it's "icky". And there are those that don't want it because they themselves are deeply in the closet that anything that might make them feel less of a man or a woman is a threat.

 

[Laura]

There are those that don't want it because it's "icky". And there are those that don't want it because they themselves are deeply in the closet that anything that might make them feel less of a man or a woman is a threat.

I was just thinking... there are lots of things men and women do together that I consider "icky".

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

pssst.... I was being sarcastic! My suggestion is just as inane/idiotic/moronic/plain ol' STUPID as the suggestions that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage.

LOL! I just saw NYC and I know that New York is one of the only remaining few states that doesn't allow one party divorces. Now that I see you realize it was a idiotic statement, I in turn, feel like the idiot!

Anyway, I hope to God that someday you are able to marry your SO and people get off their high morality horses and realize we are not livng in the dark ages. To quote the most rediculously cheesy song in the world: What the world needs now, is love sweet love. And it has never rang so true.

 

[dejr_8]

Another poster has already answered this, but I'll do so as well. Marriage is, ultimately, defined by law. There is no inherent right to marry in the constitution or otherwise for anyone. The government decides to recognize certain unions in order to make things easier on iteself (i.e. taxes, figuring out who a child's father is). However, the government is not going to bother recognizing marriage if it does not serve a useful purpose or, alternatively, if it could result in more problems than good.

So, we don't let children marry because we don't think they can make good decisions, we don't think they can care for themselves (let alone their own offspring) and it would create a greater hassel for the government if we did (because who else would be left to clean up after them?). For the exact same reason, we wouldn't let people marry animals (so all those folks saying gay marriage will lead to people marrying turtles are a little off).

We don't let men marry multiple women because it would only confuse the origin of any offspring from the union. Okay, sure, one father. But who's the mother? If the father dies, who's responsible for caring for the initial 18 years of the kid's life? And what becomes of the relationship between the wives? Are they each other's wives? If they don't work, who supports them now? Who get's the husband's death benefits? How does probate split up the estate? No, more than two makes for too many problems.

Now where's the governmental problem with two men (or two women) entering into a legally recognized union? They're adults who can care for themselves. If one has a child, or either adopts a child, then there is one other definitive parent to schlep the kid off on in case of catastrophe. I can think of one potential problem that would immediately arise for the government, they'd have to include a line for identifying sex on many important forms (like tax forms, for instance). However, in the long run, I think this is a pretty minor issue.

I'm happy to hear any arguments as to why the government would not want to allow two adult humans to voluntarily enter into a legal union?

OK - let's walk through this again.

The basis for the Courts making gay marriage/civil unions legal is that is is discriminatory to only allow opposite sex individuals to marry and thus individuals of the same sex must be permitted to marry as well.

The COURTS are saying it is a constituional right - not me. So the argument again is how can that right ONLY be extended to a union of two people and NOT a union of three (or more)?

As usual, it is the liberals that are resorting to name calling (homophobic) when they can't understand the basis of an argument.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

There are those that don't want it because it's "icky". And there are those that don't want it because they themselves are deeply in the closet that anything that might make them feel less of a man or a woman is a threat.

Yes, but from the government's point of view there is no such thing as "icky". There are only things which can make life easier for the population as a whole, and things which will make life more difficult for the population as a whole. I'm looking for something inherent to gay unions which would make the average American worse off.

But, of course, Rick, you know that. We're making the same point here. People take this "marriage" issue personally, but it's not personal unless it's actually your marriage. That's what gay union opponents don't get. If gay marriage is an affront to your god, well you better not do it then. But if someone else with some other diety (or a complete lack thereof) wants to enter into a legally recognized contract of union with a member of the same sex, nothing gives you the right to interfere. Your god can smite them as he/she/it chooses.

 

[sdarwkcabemanmy]

If you were a gay/lesbian person who wanted to formalize a partnership you'd understand why it matters so much.

I believe that gays/lesbians should have the right to formalize their union so they can recieve the same benefits, etc as straight marrieds. I believe that to do otherwise is a form of discrimination. JMO, YMMV, all that jazz.

 

[Nancyg56]

I will be flamed for this but ... if you permit gay marriage I don't understand how you can continue prevent polygamous marriages.

All arguments used to support gay marriage are just as valid for polygamous marriages.

In my view, we have just reached the slippery slope.

I see this as apples and oranges argument based on fear.

Now, in all seriousness, I don't know a single gay person that is asking for anything but legal equality, hence civil unions. Not me. Not my partner. Not my closest friend. No one. Those that would argue otherwise are simply looking for as many excuses to rationalize their own personal homophobic agenda. Some will use legal doctrine. Others will blather on about "super" rights as opposed to EQUAL rights. And yet others will then state smugly that this will then lead to polygamy, and then underage marriage and on and on. What the hell, let's throw in bestiality just to make things even, eh? No matter your excuse, you're simply homophobic.

Oh, and Joe and I just had our 18th anniversary this past Wednesday. 18 years of not being able to get "married" or "civil unioned" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Yet, the median duration in the US for those heterosexual marriages that end in divorce is just a little shy of 8 years. And only an average of 52% of all marriages in the US actually reach the 15th anniversary mark.

So the only ones out there that I'm aware of that are making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage are heterosexuals. We haven't had a chance to screw it all up yet.

Happy anniversary!

Every time this discussion comes up I am so confused. We live in a society where divorce seems to be the norm, where the children of one marriage are set aside for the "new" children of another (just read the family board) and where lawmakers are screaming for couples to keep their legal and moral commitments to one another while they are renting hotel rooms in order to commit adultery while their terminally ill wife is home caring for the children. We are in the middle of two wars, an economic tsunami and global warming. We have widespread homelessness and families who have no health care. Why on Earth are we still worrying if the gay couple next door wants to marry? This is what this nation is still afraid of? This makes no sense to me. We are denying people the right to make and keep legal commitments to one another while begging others to please keep their commitments

My BIL and his partner were together over 20 years. I have no idea if they wanted to marry, that option was never open to them. I do know that when he died his partner had no legal right to his ashes, or his records. My FIL had to take care that my BIL's wishes were honored. That was not fair, not to my BIL's partner nor to my DFIL. He should have been able to mourn his son and his dear friend should have been able to grieve by finalizing Eddie's legal arrangements. There never should have been any questions about final wishes being honored, and while my DFIL would never interfered in this, Eddie's partner knew enough about grieving parents of gay men to worry. It was a shame, really. Eddie has been gone for over ten years ad his partner has never gotten over his loss, never found another to take his place and to my knowledge is not trying. To me, this is a commitment we seldom see in hetero couples.

The CT Supreme Ct has overturned the ban for gay couples to marry and I think it is about time. Discrimination should not be legal.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I am with the OP in my confusion over why this is such a hot button topic too. For the life of me I just don't get why gay couples can't be united and afforded the same protections under the law as hetero couples. The only arguments I can see are Religious and since I do not think Religion has any place in our civic world I do not see why the laws have not been changed yet.

To me its all about respect. I totally respect other people's right to do as they see fit as long as their rights do not overlap or supersede someone else's rights. But as soon as there is an overlap I have a problem.... actually a huge problem with it no matter what the subject and I find it disgusting whenever someone tries to tell me "THIS persons rights are valuable but THAT persons rights are disposable'.

As for civic unions and family law, the stringent guidelines baffle me. Not only do I think that gay couples should be granted the same rights but I also think that how we define a family unit really needs to be re-defined. The laws we are talking about should not only help gay people but also adult children who care for elderly parents. Any adult who cares for someone else and treats them as a dependent (parents, life partner or adult children) should not only be able to claim them as dependents for tax purposes but should also be able to include them in their household number for employee benefits.

 

[smartestnumber5]

OK - let's walk through this again.

The basis for the Courts making gay marriage/civil unions legal is that is is discriminatory to only allow opposite sex individuals to marry and thus individuals of the same sex must be permitted to marry as well.

The COURTS are saying it is a constituional right - not me. So the argument again is how can that right ONLY be extended to a union of two people and NOT a union of three (or more)?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Loving v. Virginia. Do you think that case leads to a slippery slope to polygamous marriage? Why/why not?