The guy who can't make medical decision for his husband will care when the hospital tells him he's not family will care.
Last edited by StewedParrot; May 23rd, 2012 at 09:37 PM..
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.
Last edited by SmilinSilhouette; May 24th, 2012 at 05:19 AM..
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?
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?
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
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.
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. ;)
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?
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.
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"
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".
Hot Right Now
- 2.4M views
- 306K shares
- 133 views
- 0 comments
- 76,311 views
- 4.4K shares
- 13,232 views
- 476 shares
- 13,534 views
- 264 shares
- 4,367 views
- 189 shares