Same-Sex Marriage

FreakyLocz14 said:

You would have to leave the country right now to achieve that. The difference between civil unions/domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage is symbolic: the use of the term "marriage". In order for same-sex marriage to mean anything more than civil unions other than what it is called, Congress would have to repeal DOMA. That's where all the energy should be focused; not on symbolic victories. As it is now, even if Nevada legalized same-sex marriage, your marriage in Vegas would not be recognized by the federal government like a heterosexual marriage would, regardless of whether it was a marriage, a civil union, a domestic partnership, etc.

Click to expand...

I think we're agreeing about the same things. Also, I brought up a marriage in Vegas as an example of something I could do if I was straight. Hell, even though I'm NOT straight, I could still pick up a dude in a bar, fly him to Vegas, & we'd be married within hours. I'm not afforded the same luxury with a woman I actually love & cherish & have been with for umpteen years.

cjr72 said:

To me the solution is not granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians but doing away with marriage licences, tax breaks for married couples, etc, altogether. There's really no compelling reason for government to be involved with marriage gay or straight. Marriage licences were introduced to allow the government to place prohibitions on marriage such as making interracial marriage illegal at one time.

Click to expand...

exactly

this is what I was stating earlier......... they keep tossing around the word "rights" as if they have some right to something....... nobody anywhere has ANY 'right' to get married

as far as the benefits go....... instead of fighting to join the discriminatory practice of giving special benefits to married people......... if equality is what you truely want.... you should be fighting to take away those marriage benefits......that SINGLE people will never have the (to use the phrase of the day) "RIGHT" to receive

copestag said:

exactly

this is what I was stating earlier......... they keep tossing around the word "rights" as if they have some right to something....... nobody anywhere has ANY 'right' to get married

as far as the benefits go....... instead of fighting to join the discriminatory practice of giving special benefits to married people......... if equality is what you truely want.... you should be fighting to take away those marriage benefits......that SINGLE people will never have the (to use the phrase of the day) "RIGHT" to receive

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand at all. No, no one has the "right" to get married. Gay people can have ceremonies to celebrate their commitment to one another that are just as special & meaningful as traditional weddings. The "rights" come after the fact.

For example, married spouses have the "right" to see their spouse in the hospital, and make decisions on their behalf if they can't do so themselves. If they are on their death bed, their spouse can be there, hold their hand, & reassure them that they love them forever and always.

Now I THINK there have been some changes to the way this is handled now for gay people. But, I know in the recent past even if a gay couple has been together for, say, over 20 years and they're good as married in everyone's eyes, if one partner is on their death bed, and the dying partner's parents who they haven't seen in umpteen years barge in and say they don't want that "***" anywhere near their baby...then that was that. Suddenly the dying partner can't spend their last minutes with their beloved of 20+ years. That shit aint right.

Again, I think that's changed somewhat. I'm single so it really doesn't affect me at this point in my life. If I was happily partnered, I'd definitely look into this more.

Further, what you are proposing would indeed destroy the sanctity of marriage. If gay folk were on the warpath to strip married people of their rights, you can bet heterosexual people would be even more up in arms than they are now. I believe that the contract of "marriage" or "unions" or whatever you want to call them should be a serious thing. I think it should be more difficult to get a divorce for any "married" (or unioned, or whatever) couples. I think that would deter both straight and gay couples from getting "married" unless they were absolutely sure they were choosing the perfect match. Or, maybe more rigorous counselling should be done BEFORE marriage. I know a few gay couples who have had their ceremonies, and lived together as husband and husband or wife and wife for awhile, decide it wasn't their thing, and it was relatively easy to split. I hope that when our time comes, gay people will be responsible in choosing their partners, won't flaunt it in people's faces (which would be a real temptation), and show their opponents that this was worth fighting for.

see you just keep goin on about 'rights'......... there are no rights remotely involved with the entire institution of marriage......... there are plenty of privileges........most of which you can legally already obtain.... at least the ones you seem to be complaining about......... and btw who can and cannot be in the hospital room has nothing to do with legality if the patient is an adult...... its a hospital courtesy and changing the law will not force them to change their courtesy policies

so if a guy was dating a girl for 20 years he would be in the same boat...... equality for all or none

then of course there are other questions........ what if a bisexual wants to marry a guy and a girl..... should that be allowed?

then of course that brings about polygamy...... why cant a guy have 4 wives who he really really truely loves.......... nobody fights for the polygamist "rights"

copestag said:

so if a guy was dating a girl for 20 years he would be in the same boat...... equality for all or none

then of course there are other questions........ what if a bisexual wants to marry a guy and a girl..... should that be allowed?

then of course that brings about polygamy...... why cant a guy have 4 wives who he really really truely loves.......... nobody fights for the polygamist "rights"

Click to expand...

You're right, if a guy and a girl were simply "dating" for 20 years they would be in the same boat. But you'd think if they were monogamous for that long, they would have done something about their commitment to one another. Say they were doing it for their own reasons. Like they didn't believe in "marriage." They didn't want to put up with all the taxes, legal work, etc that goes into a "marriage." That's fine. That's their choice. But shouldn't a couple that WANTS all that be granted that option, as well?

Me, I'm a single lesbian. Do I wish I had more "rights" than a single straight person? Nope. That doesn't make any sense. Tomorrow I could jump on my roof and proclaim "Just kidding! I like guys!" Would anything change in my day to day life? Nope.

As for polygamy, a "marriage" or "union" is a CONTRACT between TWO PARTIES. You add a third (or fourth, fifth, etc) it becomes much more hairy.

youre avoiding the entire concept though......... if a couple want to stay devoted to each other for life but dont believe in marriage then they are denied the same privileges you are....... youre saying the legal standard for equality should be whether you "want" all that or not?

I bet that couple "wants" all those privileges..... they just may not believe in marriage

polygamists "want" all that....... just because you think it would be "hairy" is reason enough to deny them equality?

and what exactly is "much more hairy"...... there are contracts between multiple parties all the time that work perfectly...... its the ones that dont that are hairy...... but guess what...... a contract between 2 parties is equally hairy...... divorce is ugly whether its 2 people or 10

plenty of people think gay marriage would be hairy....... so based on that you should be denied

besides as I said earlier........ many if not most of the 'legal' reasons you may cite you are already legally entitled to with the proper paperwork... such as financial or medical decisions ... in fact a complete stranger could be entitled to the same privileges with the proper paperwork... the only things you wouldnt be entitled to are things that married people shouldnt be getting as a discriminatory privilege anyhow... such as tax credits

as I said....... if you truely want equality you should want it for everyone..... you should be seeking to eliminate special privileges for married people

copestag said:

as I said....... if you truely want equality you should want it for everyone..... you should be seeking to eliminate special privileges for married people

Click to expand...

Right, the issue here is MARRIAGE (or union, or whatever) equality. And, just because you want to abolish marriage rights doesn't mean that I want that as well. We're not required to share the same opinions, you know. And, it's not fair to lump gay people in with polygamists. As far as I know, people aren't born to be polygamists. Hell, I could be wrong about that. Some people can't comprehend that people are born gay. Regardless, I'm not a polygamist, I don't believe it's right, so it's not my fight (and not to mention it's a completely different subject).

To ME, marriage (or unions, or whatever) is a Big Deal (tm). Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I didn't grow up with every little girl's dream of walking down the aisle. Instead of my knight in shining armor, though, I'm waiting for my dyke in comfy flannel. When I finally find Mrs. Penguin, I want our union to be recognized by everyone as legal and binding and legitimate, to death do us part. When I find The One, I'm sure we'll have the ceremony and we'll exchange vows and rings. If we don't have all the rights and privelages associated with a marriage (or union, or whatever), it won't make me love her any less. It will just suck that we won't be granted those things based on what we do on our wedding night.

pantlesspenguin said:

Further, what you are proposing would indeed destroy the sanctity of marriage. If gay folk were on the warpath to strip married people of their rights, you can bet heterosexual people would be even more up in arms than they are now. I believe that the contract of "marriage" or "unions" or whatever you want to call them should be a serious thing. I think it should be more difficult to get a divorce for any "married" (or unioned, or whatever) couples. I think that would deter both straight and gay couples from getting "married" unless they were absolutely sure they were choosing the perfect match. Or, maybe more rigorous counselling should be done BEFORE marriage. I know a few gay couples who have had their ceremonies, and lived together as husband and husband or wife and wife for awhile, decide it wasn't their thing, and it was relatively easy to split. I hope that when our time comes, gay people will be responsible in choosing their partners, won't flaunt it in people's faces (which would be a real temptation), and show their opponents that this was worth fighting for.

Click to expand...

Well I have to respectfully disagree. First of all I don't see why it would necessarily be a case of "gay folk were on the warpath to strip married people of their rights". I think many libertarian minded people of different stripes could get behind doing away with official marriage licenses, etc. But also as I've said earlier marriage licenses where used in large part in this country to not only exclude gay marriage but also interracial marriage. Going back further to Europe it was instituted by the Church that had an official role alongside the government at that time. The US constitution explicitly prohibits the establishment of an official church, so to me that makes the requirement of a marriage license in this country superfluous at best and rather odious at worst when you consider the racist/homophobic component that is involved with it. To me the "progressive" position is not to fight to be included in this but to do away with it altogether.

cjr72 said:

Well I have to respectfully disagree. First of all I don't see why it would necessarily be a case of "gay folk were on the warpath to strip married people of their rights". I think many libertarian minded people of different stripes could get behind doing away with official marriage licenses, etc. But also as I've said earlier marriage licenses where used in large part in this country to not only exclude gay marriage but also interracial marriage. Going back further to Europe it was instituted by the Church that had an official role alongside the government at that time. The US constitution explicitly prohibits the establishment of an official church, so to me that makes the requirement of a marriage license in this country superfluous at best and rather odious at worst when you consider the racist/homophobic component that is involved with it. To me the "progressive" position is not to fight to be included in this but to do away with it altogether.

Click to expand...

You do bring up some excellent points (that I somewhat agree with), but think of it from the side of the people who ALREADY say that allowing gays to marry would destroy the sanctity of marriage. That's one of the things that really sickens me to hear. There are cheating spouses, shows like the bachelor & bachelorette, divorce rates through the roof, Vegas drive through weddings, and yet people think a monogomous gay couple who love and cherish each other would destroy the sanctity of marriage?? So, if we suddenly wanted to strip marriage rights away from EVERYONE, that would have a HUGE backlash, I would think. I guess I have a more "conservative" view of marriage because of how I see some straight people behave regarding their own views of marriage. That, and I have an EXCELLENT example of what a happy marriage consists of with my parents. They're in their 60s, retired and living in Arizona, and as happy now as they were when they first got married. In my 32 years, I've rarely heard them argue, and never heard them fight. They raised my brother and me very well. I'd love to find my perfect match and have what they have.

copestag said:

youre avoiding the entire concept though......... if a couple want to stay devoted to each other for life but dont believe in marriage then they are denied the same privileges you are....... youre saying the legal standard for equality should be whether you "want" all that or not?

I bet that couple "wants" all those privileges..... they just may not believe in marriage

Click to expand...

I agree with what is stated here! My better half and I have been together for almost 9 years now. She has serious health issues but I cannot add her to my health insurance because she and I are not legally married. This, by the way, parallels a specific battle that I've fought with my employers for several years now... sadly to no avail.

If she and I had been a same-sex couple we could get health insurance through my employers. But since we are an unmarried heterosexual couple we cannot.

The world we live in is filled with odd rules, standards, and attitudes. Until the world comes to a realization that the committment is more important than a "piece of paper", people who fall outside of the "statistical norm" will likely continue to be affected by this silliness.

In Ireland we have civil partnership where people in a dependent relationship can get most of the benefits of being married.
It can be gotten by heterosexual couples, same sex couples, and carers and the dependant

It seems quite good, and provides for situations such as yours Martimus.

I would like to see Gay Marraige, but I wont be protesting anytime soon as long as we have this.

You might criticize the Greens for propping up FF, but its things like these (and protecting education) that they'll he remembered for.

FreakyLocz14 said:

tl;dr
Gays are awesome and deserve rights!

Click to expand...

What rights? They have exactly the same marriage rights us straight folks have.

Straight men cannot marry straight or gay men and straight women cannot marry straight or gay women. Gay men can marry straight women or gay women and straight men can marry gay women or straight women. Straight, gay, or Bi men can marry straight, bi, or gay women but they cannot marry gay, straight, or bi men.

Women, straight or gay, can marry straight or gay men but they cannot marry women, be them straight or gay.

Bisexual men can marry gay, straight, or Bi women but never bi, straight or gay men. Same for bi women; they can marry gay, straight, or bi men but never women.

Not sure if a gay and transgendered man who has a sex change should marry a women or man or perhaps we need a law that says they can only marry other transgendered people who have had reversal surgery and therefore can marry a bi-sexual not transgendered man who once was a woman but is now a half-bi gay person who has had so much done, he/she cant remember his or her original gender. But only in Vermont.

Or Vegas where apparently, what you do in Vegas stays in Vegas until it shows up on YouTube.

See . . exactly the same marriage rights.

As for me, I want a woman who loves dogs, banjos, vintage bikes, and machine shops. She can be gay or Bi, too. Because we are allowed to marry under the current laws.

Martimus said:

I agree with what is stated here! My better half and I have been together for almost 9 years now. She has serious health issues but I cannot add her to my health insurance because she and I are not legally married. This, by the way, parallels a specific battle that I've fought with my employers for several years now... sadly to no avail.

If she and I had been a same-sex couple we could get health insurance through my employers. But since we are an unmarried heterosexual couple we cannot.

The world we live in is filled with odd rules, standards, and attitudes. Until the world comes to a realization that the committment is more important than a "piece of paper", people who fall outside of the "statistical norm" will likely continue to be affected by this silliness.

Click to expand...

This is very unfortunate & sad . It's stupid what some employers can get away with. It actually sounds like they discriminate against heterosexual couples! How is it that unmarried same-sex couples can get insurance but you can't?? I guess I take my company's benefits for granted regarding unmarried couples, because I'm single and don't need to worry about that. At my company, anyone who can prove that they have cohabititated for 6 months (I think...it could be a year) can put their partner on the company's insurance, whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

I can admit when I'm wrong. I think I was wrong to say that it's people's choice to get married and if they chose that route then they shouldn't get the benefits. The fight for "gay marriage" (or unions, or whatever) has blinded me somewhat about the plights of other types of couples. You're absolutely right that commitment to one another should matter more than a piece of paper. I've just always viewed that "piece of paper" as the end-all in recognizing a loving and committed couple, the one thing a couple should always strive for. I do know now that this isn't always the case.

pantlesspenguin said:

It actually sounds like they discriminate against heterosexual couples! How is it that unmarried same-sex couples can get insurance but you can't??

Click to expand...

Most modern HR departments would not respond well to the inference that this is discrimination. They feel that they are providing an excellent benefit program that benefits both heterosexual and same-sex couples. This is simply a permutation that wasn't accomodated for. In the past when I've approached them regarding this, their response has been that resolution is simple... get married.

In my case this is problematic because my better half doesn't want to get married. In that sense I suppose I'm fortunate to have found a woman who doesn't require marriage. At the same time it makes it awfully difficult for me to provide her the level of support that I feel compelled to provide.

I'm so happy that same sex marriage is going to be legal in NY. Just in time too. Move date: Aug 1st.

Vihzel said:

I'm so happy that same sex marriage is going to be legal in NY. Just in time too. Move date: Aug 1st.

Click to expand...

Wow - that's quickly approaching on the move date! Congrats.

I tell all my friends and family that I wholeheartedly believe that everyone should have the opportunity for equal misery in marriage. I don't care what sex you are. If you love them, marry them, be miserable together. (Don't worry - I have examples in my life of marriages that do work too but the misery is more prevalent in society I think)

FreakyLocz14 said:

Nice try, but that's not equality. Heterosexuals naturally feel attraction to the opposite-sex, so they can marry the partner they are emotionally and physically attracted to. Homosexuals are naturally attracted to the same-sex, but they do not have the same right to marry the partner they become emotionally and physically attracted to in most places.

Click to expand...

I don't think he was serious. My "Maxey Tongue-In-Cheek Meter" is getting better, & his post tripped it .

BabyBlues said:

I tell all my friends and family that I wholeheartedly believe that everyone should have the opportunity for equal misery in marriage. I don't care what sex you are. If you love them, marry them, be miserable together.

Click to expand...

Amen!

BabyBlues said:

I tell all my friends and family that I wholeheartedly believe that everyone should have the opportunity for equal misery in marriage.

Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. Wow on many levels.

Tommy78 said:

Wow, just wow. Wow on many levels.

Click to expand...

I will say I know it can work out - my parents have been married for 35 years but they seem to be the exception anymore. So I am 95% sure that the saying 'Misery Loves Company' came from a marriage