Thread Tools Display Modes

Reply Posted: May 23rd, 2012 @ 09:33 PM
Originally Posted by SmilinSilhouette View Post
Welcome SP!
Thank you!

Originally Posted by Merc View Post
The guy who can't make medical decision for his husband will care when the hospital tells him he's not family will care.

The two women that have to sit alone in silence because they were denied the right to adopt will care.

And the person who comes home from war who gets denied benefits for his/her sexual preferences while their heterosexual buddies enjoy them will care.
I over looked this. Marriage is not just about 'stuff' and money i guess. This is another reason why Gay couples seek marriage benefits on the state side... obviously.

Last edited by StewedParrot; May 23rd, 2012 at 09:37 PM..

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 05:16 AM
Originally Posted by Merc View Post
Once again, as Nev said too, does it really matter? How is your life going to change? Is this sudden equality going to cripple anything in America? No.
What does this have to do with my life?

Originally Posted by Merc View Post
Prove to me that it doesn't make gay marriage illegal or do you honestly expect politicians to be so honest as to make these laws so transparent that we can fully understand all their motives? It is now illegal in North Carolina, but I'll be awaiting your evidence that it is not.
You have still not proven it is illegal. Show me the statute that forbids the union of a gay couple. Show me documentation of anyone who has been prosecuted for their unlawful marriage based upon their sexual orientation. It should be a simple task for the person who demands links.

Originally Posted by Merc View Post
No, I don't, why would you assume that? Those other links were really easy to find, by the way.
. I know you don't. Because there is no ban on gay marriage nor is it illegal. So your claim that it is banned or illegal is false. I could find a million links that are irrelevant, they are really easy to find.

Originally Posted by Merc View Post
So it's okay with you if we strip straight couples of those benefits?
All I wrote is that there is no ban on "gay marriage" and that the issue is all about the money.

Last edited by SmilinSilhouette; May 24th, 2012 at 05:19 AM..

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 09:00 AM
Originally Posted by SmilinSilhouette View Post
What does this have to do with my life?
if they get monetary benefits than that money has to come out of somewhere(aka taxpayers)...

Originally Posted by SmilinSilhouette View Post
All I wrote is that there is no ban on "gay marriage" and that the issue is all about the money.
money is always an issue,to some more,to some less.also there are some benefits which are not monetary (for example "family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison"-from Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

i'm rather confused about your stance here. are you saying that we should not give them the same benefits we get because we can?(which is my view on things in general) or should we maybe remove monetary benefits gained from marriage? or are you simply claiming that since they care only about money their marriage is meaningless and there's no point in allowing it,whilst if they aren't in it for the money they can pretty much get married anyway? or maybe something else?

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by SmilinSilhouette View Post
Welcome SP!

That is some mature discussion and I'm digging it!

What gives the government the authority to regulate relationships. I can't find that part in the constitution. Why shouldn't the government treat ALL citizens EQUALLY under the law. They should not be in the business of providing a benefit not equally available to all.
It would be found under the 10th Amendment. It's the powers not enumerated to the federal government that is reserved by the states. Marriage is a legal contract, and it should be. It protects people who enter into a marriage and is taken advantage of.
Originally Posted by StewedParrot View Post
This discussion has reminded me of how not-so-separated church and state really is. We have a religious tradition that is dominated by the state?

I think that The Church needs to take it's tradition back and have all state authority removed. Meaning that it becomes a personal tradition that has no legal merit. Then i think we need to change how 'partner' license work on the state side. Giving more room to breathe for all regardless of personal belief. Any people should be able to share their 'stuff' if they want to.

I agree with what some have already pointed out... marriage is definitely about money and sharing. doesn't matter if your gay or straight.

I can partially understand why any couple would want to be bound by law. but i can't fathom why gay couples would want to be part of a tradition that does not believe what they believe. And this is where the problem lies. The Marriage License in general needs to be overhauled and church needs to be separated from state.
1) Separation of church and state is a legal fiction. It's the most often used metaphor and really means nothing close to what the Establishment Clause's intent. The original intent was actually to stop the government from interferring with religion, or as John Locke wrote, one's "liberty of conscious". Many interpret it incorrectly that it was intended to prevent religion from interferring with government, it's intent was the exact opposite.

2) Marriage is not a religious tradion per se, Marriage has been recognized in societies that did not believe in Christianity, or some with no religious beliefs at all. To say it's a religious tradition is not backed up historically.

3) It's govered by the states because it's a legal contract. This has absolutely nothing to do with any separation of church and state. A state can allow gay marriage, a state cannot force a church to perform or recognize that marriage.

Last edited by CaptainObvious; May 24th, 2012 at 12:05 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 11:38 AM
So CO wouldn't you agree that there is no law banning or making "gay marriage" illegal?

The issue is not whether it is banned or illegal. The issue is the fact that it is not recognized as the same as heterosexual marriage. It is an issue of recognition.

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 12:33 PM
I don't think I'm such an intelligent debater as some of those who have posted here, and I may live to regret this post, but I'll give it a go.

Yes, two men (or two women) can hire a hall or a hotel or whatever, make their vows, have a party. Those vows, in many states and countries, will not be recognised in the eyes of the law. Hence and therefore, as far as I can see, gay marriage is illegal. A heterosexual couple doing the exact same thing would not have a marriage recognised by law unless there was an officiant presiding over a very specific ceremony. The difference is that in many places the gay couple can't get an officiant, because the law prohibits it.

Marriage is, in my opinion, an institution of the state to regulate individuals. The Christian state ('state' in the general sense, not as in any individual US State, and Christianity of course being the big one, and the religion on which most US and UK laws are broadly based, morality-wise) wanted monogamy. Therefore, marriage is historically between one man and one woman, not two men and one woman, or two women and one men, or three women, two men and a prize horse. I also think that as religion becomes less and less of a factor in Average Joe's life, marriage has become a legal institution more and more. Married couples get various benefits unmarried partnerships do not. I'm sure I could find links for exactly what those benefits are, but I should think that the tax benefits and things like being automatically legally next of kin in case of one spouse's death are pretty common knowledge? I will find you some links if not!

Hiring a hall and having a party does not legally constitute a marriage, therefore the couple does not gain the same rights and benefits as a legally married couple. For instance, and here's one that's not got anything to do with money, an unmarried gay man could be denied the right to visit his terminally ill boyfriend in hospital, because he wouldn't be considered 'family'. Also, "Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings" (that's not to do with $$), and "are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples" (a bit about $$, but are you going to deny a benefit to someone in need of a protection program? And let's say for argument that his being gay has nothing whatsoever to do with why he needs protection??). On his boyfriend's death, an unmarried gay man "is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will." Okay, some of those are about money, but what about the bereavement leave? Or filing wrongful death claims if his partner died through negligence in hospital or otherwise by someone else's fault?

The parts in ".." above came from Why Marriage Matters by Evan Wolfson, which I confess is on a pro-gay marriage site, but I bet I could find the exact same information on an independent site or three.

Now, personal time. If I ever want to marry someone of my own sex (which, in the interests of full disclosure, is something that might happen -- I am 50/50 bisexual), there are only certain states in America in which I can do that, and in the UK (where I am), we can get a civil partnership, which affords some but not all of the rights and benefits attached to heterosexual marriage (though our government is apparently going to level the playing field sooner or later, I believe by introducing civil marriages). True, nobody could stop me from declaring my commitment in any way I chose, as long as there wasn't an official registrar or (in some churches) priest presiding over the ceremony, but that is not marriage. That, to me, is a commitment ceremony, and those are very worthwhile and power to those who choose to go that route, but if I want to get married, I want a marriage which is recognised in the eyes of the law and the state. And in many places, marriages between two men are not recognised by the state or legally sanctioned. Therefore, I submit that gay marriage IS illegal.

As I said, I may regret coming in here, but it's an issue I feel quite strongly about, so I thought I should give it a shot. If I deserve to be ripped apart, I will submit graciously, but please do so without getting too much blood on the furnishings -- I just had the curtains dry-cleaned. ;)

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 04:11 PM
@ Falconer: You're doing a fine job. Why is it that government must interject itself into personal relationships? You bring up the idea of marriage as a legal contract, which it is in part. I don't see why any citizen should be able to enter into a contract that others are forbidden to enter into. Lots of people are hung up on the idea of redefining marriage. Why not call it something else?

Now there is the sticky situation about how adding more beneficiaries to existing programs is going to be paid for. Even your example of bereavement leave. Paid or unpaid it costs the company. Could the forced addition of new beneficiaries make the whole process unaffordable?

What about single people? They don't receive any of these "benefits" either. How is this fair to them? How are they to be compensated for the benefits they don't receive?

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 04:21 PM
There is no ban on two gay people living together as a couple, being in a relationship and existing as if they were a married couple. However, that's not what they're fighting for. They want to be recognized as a married couple in the eyes of the law, just like a heterosexual couple is.

One situation I can think of that would be different for a gay couple from a hetero couple, is in the instance of one of them dying. A married couple, when one spouse dies, his belongings or inheritance can go to widow/widower, and the deceased's family can't really say much since the law protects that from happening. However, in the case of a gay couple, if the law isn't recognizing their marriage as legit, then the deceased's family can just come in and claim whatever, since they're technically next of kin, not the widow. If the deceased was the main breadwinner, the spouse left behind would be screwed if the family came in and claimed everything. Thats the kind of thing that a legal marriage protects.

Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by SmilinSilhouette View Post
What about single people? They don't receive any of these "benefits" either. How is this fair to them? How are they to be compensated for the benefits they don't receive?
...what is the point of this statement here? I've been reading this thread since last night and this one makes no sense, the topic wasn't about single people, gay or straight. Their benefits come from their own hard work and social lives, they're obviously single because they like the bachelor/ette life or they havent found their partner yet. So unless you can explain to me why you pulled this statement out of nowhere, its irrelevant to the topic.

Having said that, I'm sure the homosexual populus would appreicate more states legalizing gay marriage for the sheer fact they wouldn't have to worry about hospital visitation with paperwork hassel or spousal/child custody or visitation or even adoptions. You've mentioned numerous times before that this is mostly about money? But for whome? The gays or for the state/government? Because so far, I'm pretty sure that the couple who wishes to get married to one another are paying thousands just to get the process done. Marriage certificate, documents for name changes, rings, weddings and the whole process is costing them most of the money, paperwork alone with wedding arrangements is not cheap. Anyone who's actually had a wedding could tell you that, straight and gay alike.

Yet, still, you debate its about money through benefits or benefits in general? A marriage is a partnership, a team, a dinamic duo between two people who love one another. If one wants to ad his/her partner to their insurance for health and dental, what's the harm of that? Its saying, "here, we're together so I'm going to do what I can to take care of you". Another situation, one person makes more money than the other...whats the problem? They take care of one another no matter what.

You've mentioned that you're "Married" to your current wife at the moment because you two said vows and had people witness in what I would call a spiritual ceremony. That's fine and dandy bud, but you're doing no more than "playing house". Like others have said, it's a binding contract between two people. I dont recall if you did have paperwork done to make it legally official, but if you didn't, good luck trying to add someone to your insurance plan and complicated matter like that. Not a lot of government agencies will see you two as married. Sorry, but its like I said, it's "playing house"


Reply Posted: May 24th, 2012 @ 05:23 PM
The reason I brought up single people is because they don't receive the same "benefits" as married people either. Are they banned or illegal because they don't receive the same "benefits"?

BTW I'm not arguing that gay people should be denied anything. My point is that just because it isn't the same legally as heterosexual marriage does not mean it is "banned" or "illegal".

Thread Tools
Display Modes

gay marriage