Same-sex marriage

[RickinNYC]

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.

Well, this liberal isn't calling you any names. Homophobia is a state of being. If you are indeed homophobic why in the world would you find it name calling or offensive?

Oh, and I do completely understand the basis of your argument and am aware of your thought process. We've gone over this together under your current name, and your previous ID.

Homophobia is homophobia. If you don't like being called homophobic, then don't be homophobic.

 

[sdarwkcabemanmy]

Happy Anniversary Rick!

My DH and I have been married nearly 10 years (it'll be 10 years in Feb) and when we meet new people our own age (30 something) they look positively confused when we tell them that. Like it's the most bizarre thing ever. I don't think it is, but then again, we have gone through fire to get here, too.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I wouldn't have posted it if I felt it was all lies. That is your opinion.


You can't make religious organizations marry them

But they will be harrassed/sued etc....if they don't. That will be the next step.

Why do you think this would happen? Why do you think that gay people would even want to get married in a church that hates them?

As others have said, religious organizations currently have every right to determine who they will marry for any reason or no reason at all and they do it all the time! If the possibility of some people getting mad and harassing/suing a religious organization for refusing to marry them is a good enough reason to keep certain kinds of marriage illegal, then we best outlaw inter-religious marriage right away, and marriage involving a previously divorced people, and marriage between unbaptized people, or people who don't intend to have kids. Because, gasp, all of those kinds of people routinely get turned away from some religions when it comes to marrying.

I assume you'll be contacting your state legislators to work on these restrictions right away lest some ticked off divorcee decide to sue or harass the Catholic Church.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

You know....I knew I shouldn't post in this thread....sigh.

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.

The court's do not say that marriage is a constitutional right. It's not mentioned in the constitution, and by the way your link thereto in your signature is broken. What the constitution does say is that you can't give one citizen a protection under the law that you deny to another citizen. If the government decides to create a form of protection for persons who decide to live together, jointly raise offspring, share finances, etc...then it cannot deny two other people the same protection. However, if the government decides it's too much of a hassel to create protection for a similar union of three or more persons, well then it doesn't have to offer such protections to anyone. Not creating the option at all is equal application of the law. Heck, the government could very well decide to refuse to legally recognize marriages period. It would probably be a poor idea, but it would at least be fairly applied.

I have never called anyone a homophobe, especially not on these boards. And although I may be classified as a liberal, I'm also classified as an attorney...and yes, I can understand a legal argument.

That's it, no more posting in this thread for me. Talk amongst yourselves.

 

[Laura]

You know....I knew I shouldn't post in this thread....sigh.



The court's do not say that marriage is a constitutional right. It's not mentioned in the constitution, and by the way your link thereto in your signature is broken. What the constitution does say is that you can't give one citizen a protection under the law that you deny to another citizen. If the government decides to create a form of protection for persons who decide to live together, jointly raise offspring, share finances, etc...then it cannot deny two other people the same protection. However, if the government decides it's too much of a hassel to create protection for a similar union of three or more persons, well then it doesn't have to offer such protections to anyone. Not creating the option at all is equal application of the law. Heck, the government could very well decide to refuse to legally recognize marriages period. It would probably be a poor idea, but it would at least be fairly applied.

I have never called anyone a homophobe, especially not on these boards. And although I may be classified as a liberal, I'm also classified as an attorney...and yes, I can understand a legal argument.

That's it, no more posting in this thread for me. Talk amongst yourselves.

Excellent points.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Additional question for those in states that have legalized gay marriage (not just civil unions): Do churches that believe homosexuality is against their religion have the right to say "no" to marry a same-sex couple or would they risk the potential of a lawsuit on the grounds of discrimination?

I've always wondered that.

My state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, but our churches currently have a right to say "no" to couples that don't belong to their church, divorced individuals, couples that don't take their pre-marital counseling class, etc. Why would anything change with same-sex couples?

On the flip side, although the government doesn't currently recognize their marriages, they do allow them. Many same sex couples are married religiously, and no one is trying to stop them. Again, I wouldn't expect any changes.

I don't think that the states should legalize gay marriage. But I also don't think the states should be sanctioning hetero marriage either. Marriage is a religious institituion and should be reserved for the churches to decide who to marry. If your church wishes to only marry hetero people so be it, if your church wishes to marry same sex people, so be it.

What the state should sanction are civil unions, and civil unions should be allowed to be formed by any 2 consenting adults.

But that's just me.

The way I see it, we already have this, only instead of calling it a "civil union", most states use the term "marriage". It's just semantics, but we already have a separate process for legal marriage and religious marriage, and while most married Americans have both, some have just one or the other. (I know you know this Master Mason, but for the benefit of those who don't...) Current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage apply only to legal marriage, not religious.

You can't make religious organizations marry them

But they will be harrassed/sued etc....if they don't. That will be the next step.

What proof do you have that this will happen?

They actually can marry civilly. Calif. voted on this law in 2000 with over 60% of the people against gay marriage. The courts have gone against the will of the people. Which is actually my biggest concern here. Taking away the right to our vote.

Taking away your right to vote? Let's not be so dramatic! The courts are given the responsibility of ensuring that laws voted by the people are constitutional. It's a system of checks and balances that was purposefully created to prevent exactly these types of situations. In the past, the courts have had to step in to allow interracial marriage and force school desegregation, because the majority of Americans at the time would have voted against those issues as well.

The question I have is in the 2nd grade who the heck "teaches" marriage? Its no where to be found in the curriculum in NJ and most of the schools don't approach health education until 7th or 8th grade.

It's not in our curriculum, either. Since they don't currently teach heterosexual marriage, why would they teach same-sex marriage? Every time I read articles like this, it appears that the fact a book showing diverse family structures exists in the library, or is read at storytime, equals "teaching" to some people.

Oh, and Joe and I just had our 18th anniversary this past Wednesday.

Congratulations!

 

[Mrs.Toad]

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 don't know. How do the courts and legislators draw the line in other situations? I have a "right" to free speech, but not to slander or to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I have a right to accept fancy dinners and gifts in exchange for sex, but not cash.

All laws have to draw a line somewhere. For marriage, drawing it between same-sex marriage and poly-marriage makes sense to me based on the fact that multiple partner marriage would require a complete revamping of many laws, where same-sex marriage doesn't. Also, hetero-only marriage truly discriminates against people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Proponents will say "no it doesn't, everyone is allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex", but that is too simplistic. Assuming a person is truly homosexual, and not bisexual, they would have no chance of ever finding any person they love that they'd be allowed to marry. Heterosexuals, while they may not find love and marriage, at least they have the chance.

People who love more than one person are currently compelled to choose just one to marry. Based on all the cheating and divorce out there, I think it's safe to say that everyone is in the same boat on this one. It's hard for many people to commit to one other person, people in multiple relationships aren't at the same huge disadvantage that gays and lesbians are.

 

[Master Mason]

The way I see it, we already have this, only instead of calling it a "civil union", most states use the term "marriage". It's just semantics, but we already have a separate process for legal marriage and religious marriage, and while most married Americans have both, some have just one or the other. (I know you know this Master Mason, but for the benefit of those who don't...) Current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage apply only to legal marriage, not religious.

Which is why I advocate leaving the word Marriage to the churches and Civil Unions to the state.

The only rational (to me) arguement against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs, so leave the term to the religions and let the state sanction Civil Unions. In this manner everyone gets what they want. Don't know, always seams like the easy logical answer to me.

 

[PghLybrt]

But I really don't understand why gay marriage matters so much? It legitimately doesn't affect the marriage of anyone else, so why does it matter? Someone enlighten me please, I need to understand both sides before voting.

We all want to live in a country that is fair and free. However by denying us the ability to live our lives completely with the one we love we do not feel very free and we don’t feel live our country treats us fairly. We feel like 2nd class citizens. We are not as good as straight people. We have devise ways to keep us safe and taken care of. I want to know that when I die my girlfriend will inherit what we have built together, just as any other married couple would. Now she has to pay huge taxes on it and only if my family does not fight the validity of my will. I also worry that when we are older and come to that time when we may need assisted living that we are going to be separated. Now legally nursing homes can not separate married couples but us, sure if they want. How sad is that? I want to be able to make medical decisions, have joint insurance. Here is a SMALL list of the rights we are denied.


Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
Criminal injuries compensation;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Inheritance of land patents;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to inherit property;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
In vitro fertilization coverage;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

 

[Laura]

Which is why I advocate leaving the word Marriage to the churches and Civil Unions to the state.

The only rational (to me) arguement against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs, so leave the term to the religions and let the state sanction Civil Unions. In this manner everyone gets what they want. Don't know, always seams like the easy logical answer to me.

I don't really care if that happens, but I do wonder why marriage is considered to be religious. Buddhism, for example, doesn't do wedding ceremonies.

I like the way it's done in France. Everyone goes to the town hall to have a civil ceremony. If you want to have a religious ceremony, you do it afterward. Everyone will call themselves married, religious or not.

 

[Master Mason]

I don't really care if that happens, but I do wonder why marriage is considered to be religious. Buddhism, for example, doesn't do wedding ceremonies.

I like the way it's done in France. Everyone goes to the town hall to have a civil ceremony. If you want to have a religious ceremony, you do it afterward. Everyone will call themselves married, religious or not.

Because for as long as we can trace back marriage was a religious service or sacrement, depending on the religion, that is where it came from, the state then co opted it, inorder to assign certain rights and benifits, because it was easy, and back then pretty much everyone was religious, so they were already doing it.

There are currently churches that will perform a marriage for a same sex couple. The problem is the state doesn't recognize that marriage from the civil union standpoint, and granting the rights and benifits, (and in some cases the penalties as well).

I would think that those that believe in the "seperation of church and state" would be all over this idea.

 

[daisax]

I like the way it's done in France. Everyone goes to the town hall to have a civil ceremony. If you want to have a religious ceremony, you do it afterward. Everyone will call themselves married, religious or not.

The amusing part of that solution is that all the people who think that gay marriage isn't necessary because gays can "just" go out and draw up all the miscellaneous legal contracts (powers of attorney, wills, etc.) that would bring them the equivalent rights of a married couple would be SHOCKED at the unfair burden of having to jump through the obnoxious hoop of a second ceremony

 

[Uuaww]

I've decided on nearly all of the items on the ballot:

Prop 1A (bullet train): No
Prop 2 (animal confinement): undecided
Prop 3 (Childrens Hospitals): Yes
Prop 4 (Youth abortions): No
Prop 5 (Smaller Drug Chargers): No
Prop 6 (Harsher penalties for crimes): No
Prop 7 (Promote alt. fuels): Yes
Prop 8 (Same-sex marriage ban): No
Prop 9 (Victim's rights): undecided
Prop 10 (Promote alt. fuels): Yes
Prop 11 (Election reform): Yes
Prop 12 (Veteran's bonds): Yes (better money spent than the stupid bullet train)

I think the bullet train is an awful idea... spend the money on hospitals or the vet's bond. I am pro environment so the two alt fuels are no brainers. I don't think are drug laws are broken so don't fix them.

I am still undecided on Victim's rights and Animal cruelty... anyone have insight on those, I'd love it.

 

[Master Mason]

I've decided on nearly all of the items on the ballot:

Prop 1A (bullet train): No
Prop 2 (animal confinement): undecided
Prop 3 (Childrens Hospitals): Yes
Prop 4 (Youth abortions): No
Prop 5 (Smaller Drug Chargers): No
Prop 6 (Harsher penalties for crimes): No
Prop 7 (Promote alt. fuels): Yes
Prop 8 (Same-sex marriage ban): No
Prop 9 (Victim's rights): undecided
Prop 10 (Promote alt. fuels): Yes
Prop 11 (Election reform): Yes
Prop 12 (Veteran's bonds): Yes (better money spent than the stupid bullet train)

I think the bullet train is an awful idea... spend the money on hospitals or the vet's bond. I am pro environment so the two alt fuels are no brainers. I don't think are drug laws are broken so don't fix them.

I am still undecided on Victim's rights and Animal cruelty... anyone have insight on those, I'd love it.

Prop 9 gives more rights and benifits to the victims of crimes, such as making sure that any moneys recieved from the criminal go to paying restitution before retiring fines ect. It also increases penalties to criminals such as increasing the time to first parol hearing from 5 to 15 years.

Personally voted yes, and the only other person I have talked to about it is a friend of mine that is a convicted felon from an armed robbery when he was 19. He also is voting yes.

Prop 2, is basically a decision on if keeping egg hens, veal calfs, and pregnent pigs in a physically confined space constitutes cruelty to you, or if you concider it to be a standard practice for growing food products. Very much a personal decision to make.

 

[Laura]

Because for as long as we can trace back marriage was a religious service or sacrement, depending on the religion, that is where it came from, the state then co opted it, inorder to assign certain rights and benifits, because it was easy, and back then pretty much everyone was religious, so they were already doing it.

Marriage pre-dates history. And by the time we had history, religion permeated a lot of things in daily life.

 

[Master Mason]

Marriage pre-dates history. And by the time we had history, religion permeated a lot of things in daily life.

Agreed.

 

[bicker]

The COURTS are saying it is a constituional right

Not really. The courts are saying that Equal Protection under the Law is a Constitutional right.

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)?

Rights are granted to people, not unions. The right can be granted to marry someone. Note how you cannot preclude same-sex marriage without referring to gender, which violates Equal Protection. ("Why should John be able to marry Mary, and Anne can't marry Mary?" The only logical answer implies gender-based discrimination.) Contrast that with polygamy, still with the right granted to marry someone. There is no problem with Equal Protection: Everyone can marry up to one person (at a time).

 

[Master Mason]

Not really. The courts are saying that Equal Protection under the Law is a Constitutional right.

Rights are granted to people, not unions. The right can be granted to marry someone. Note how you cannot preclude same-sex marriage without referring to gender, which violates Equal Protection. ("Why should John be able to marry Mary, and Anne can't marry Mary?" The only logical answer implies gender-based discrimination.) Contrast that with polygamy, still with the right granted to marry someone. There is no problem with Equal Protection: Everyone can marry up to one person (at a time).

One little quibble. "unions" are infact granted rights. A corporation or business partnership is a state sanctioned union that has rights under the law.

 

[bicker]

Yes, very true. Those cases are, but not to marry.

Could you imagine marrying Coca-Cola? Or the Disney Company?

 

[Master Mason]

Yes, very true. Those cases are, but not to marry.

Could you imagine marrying Coca-Cola? Or the Disney Company?

Not personally, but I know more than a few around here that would be happy with the latter