[chris v]

This is not just "do you support gay marriage, yes or no." This is about Bush proposing we amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriages.



Edit: Bugger. Yes, there's a typo in my poll. Mod?

Edit edit: I sincerely thought I was posting in Pol/War sub-forum. Sue me. Can a mod move it?

CV

[dreilly1]

I wish someone would offer up a competing amendment which guarantees the right of gay people to marry. Let them (the amendments, that is) duke it out and then we'll really see which one the people prefer.

[shmerek]

The amendment is religious bigotry, gay couples should be afforded all the same rights as straight couples. Religious institutions should not be forced to perform such marriages but gays should have the right to marry. This amendment seems so ****ed up to me, it is discrimination why doesn't he just try to pass an amendment banning interracial marriage while he is as it? Who gives a **** if the masses support such a measure if it was up to the masses maybe black people or women wouldn't have the right to vote. Some issues need to be resolved based on higher principles of equal human rights not on what a bunch of bible thumpers believe. W is a travesty.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I wish someone would offer up a competing amendment which guarantees the right of gay people to marry. Let them (the amendments, that is) duke it out and then we'll really see which one the people prefer.

I wouldn't do that. If it is a straight (pardon the word) fight between pro or anti gay marriage, anti gay marriage will win. There is no serious political candidate advocating gay marriage. There are some former ones, like Gerry Ford who have said they support it. But people like Kerry and Edwards officially oppose equal marriage rights. And polls indicate that most Americans agree.

However, those same polls indicate that a majority oppose writing the issue into the Constitution. That's our only shot. Get the issue off the constitutional table and let the states handle it. In a decade or two it will be clear that the sky didn't fall. In a decade or two also the demographics will change. Support for gay equality is sharply tied to age. The older Americans are, the more anti-gay they tend to be. Anti-gay activists know this. That's why they are pushing to constitutionalize this now before their support literally dies.

[Myriad]

Both sides of this issue are now thinking that they are on the defensive. Those against gay marriage, generally conservative, and older, see the latest examples in Massachusetts and California as an affront to traditional values. There are also those who oppose it entirely based on realist thinking. I'm not sure which is worse. This amendment is their reactionary defense against recent events. At least for some of them. There are plenty who oppose gay marriage but do not think that an amendment to the constitution is appropriate.

On the opposite side of the coin, to people who support the right of same sex marriage, the amendment represents a direct attack. If it were ever to pass, it would be damned effective in squashing the prospect of gays getting married.

Then again, there is an election coming up, and it has been said that this could just be floated out now as a wedge issue between Bush and his opposing candidate (most likely Kerry it seems). Letting it hang around during the election could be a boon for the Bush campaign. Of course, if he is elected again, I don't see why he wouldn't push for it harder during his second term. The amendment does risk turning away moderates, but the majority of this people in this country still do oppose same sex marriage. I wish I found that hard to believe, but I don't.

Part of me wants this whole situation to bury itself for a good while, at least until it is no longer an election issue, but it just seems so damned wrong to wish that upon what is to me a civil rights issue.

[Rev-O]

If the drooling idiot-head W. is so opposed to gay marriage, let him try and pass legislation, don't amend the f***ing Constitution for this. Amending the Constitution is serious stuff.

[wulf]

I just don't see why it should be a problem to others if two men, or two women, want to marry in a civil ceremony.

I can totally understand that most religions would not sanction same-sex marriages, and they should not be forced to.

Really, who does it affect if two people want to be married, apart from the individuals themselves? Does same-sex marriage really 'devalue' hetero marriages in some way? People who think like that must be pretty insecure, IMO. But having it written into the constitution is out of the realm of insecurity and into the realm of fully deranged paranoia.

Well, that and electioneering

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wouldn't do that. If it is a straight (pardon the word) fight between pro or anti gay marriage, anti gay marriage will win.

...
However, those same polls indicate that a majority oppose writing the issue into the Constitution. That's our only shot.

I don't think that introducing a pro gay marriage amendment will make it any easier to pass an anti gay marriage amendment. If the support is there for Bush's amendment, it will pass, and there's nothing the opposition can do about it. The only consolation is that the congress and American people are so bitterly divided along party lines in general that it will be sifficult to get the required super-majority support needed to pass any amendment, much less a contentious one like this.

What I do think it will do is shift the focus of the debate: We've seen lots of arguments here against gay marriage that hinge on the "marriage" aspect -- cheapening marriage or somehow turning the institution into something less than it was.

But a pro amendment should be written with basic civil rights in mind; perhaps not even mentioning gay people at all, but stating that no law shall prohibit a marriage which would otherwise be legal on the basis of gender. Once it stops becoming a social and values issue and turns into a basic civil rights issue, I think you'll find that support will increase among people previously on the fence.

As a side note, out of all the constitutional amendments that deal with people's rights (and not procedural govermnent things like the income tax and elections), the only one that was passed to limit citizens' rights was Prohibition; all the rest either reaffirmed citizen's rights or limited the rights of the government. And we all know what happened to prohibition. I think an amendment that reaffirms people's rights has a built-in advantage against one that takes rights away. (although gay people don't have the right to get married now, one could argue that this is one of the basic rights that they should have had all along. Didn't this country go through some similar stuff a few times in the past?)

[Logic]

Are non-US people not allowed to vote in this thread? Or should we just choose other?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I don't think that introducing a pro gay marriage amendment will make it any easier to pass an anti gay marriage amendment.

I think if there were two competing amendments, then the issue would be seen as either/or. You would remove the middle ground of just leaving the issue to the states. Lots of people, both pro and anti gay rights can agree that marriage is traditionally an issue for the states and does not belong in the federal Constitution. That's the broadest coalition we can muster to defeat this amendment, so pragmatically, and I think properly, that's the argument to go with.

[Beewee]

Where is the "Don't care" option. I mean its none of my business who marrys who.

[Gankdawg]

Republican, support amendment.

Homosexuals can marry, I don't want the state to issue a license for it.

The sole reason for homosexuals wanting it to be licensed is financial. It's not for love. Homosexuals want the financial benefits of being married, primarily health care benefits. That should be left up to the company you work for, not a license from the state. Companies can choose whether or not or who to extend benefits to. If they want to get married out of love, why does the state need to license it? Homosexual couples have been getting 'married' for years but without state licensing.

If a homosexual couple is worried about death benefits/estates/poa/etc, those can all be taken care of already legally with wills and other legal documents.

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of people do not support gay marriage. This is a democracy, right?

Flame on.

[timster]

Oh, so you're saying that its really trivial for a gay couple to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for lawyer to draft up an ironclad will that will ensure the partner's security in the case of another partner's death? And even those wills can be challenged by the survivor's family (and even sometimes successfully!)

That the gay couple will have to carry around legal powers-of-attorney papers for the rest of their lives (which they also had to pay an attorney to do) to ensure that they are able to visit their partner in the hospital should one of them become sick?

That the gay couple will also have to carry around yet another stack of legal powers-of-attorney papers (which they again will have to pay an attorney to do) for the entire duration of any children their partner might have, to ensure that they are able to make decisions regarding their childrens welfare in the case of the death or incapiticance of their partner.

That gay couples don't need the financial benefits that comes with filing taxes jointly?

That maybe gay couples just want to be able to say they are married? Financial and legal considerations aside.

And all of this above, can be acheived by some drunk pop-star in Las Vegas in less than five minutes, for what.. $50 bucks?

And you call that equal rights? What a joke.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
The sole reason for homosexuals wanting it to be licensed is financial. It's not for love. Homosexuals want the financial benefits of being married, primarily health care benefits. That should be left up to the company you work for, not a license from the state. Companies can choose whether or not or who to extend benefits to. If they want to get married out of love, why does the state need to license it? Homosexual couples have been getting 'married' for years but without state licensing.

...

Flame on.

Like the Massachusetts court said (paraphrasing), separate is rarely ever equal. Saying that homosexuals can use a complicated structure of contracts to get 'married' is no substitute for the real thing.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think if there were two competing amendments, then the issue would be seen as either/or. You would remove the middle ground of just leaving the issue to the states. Lots of people, both pro and anti gay rights can agree that marriage is traditionally an issue for the states and does not belong in the federal Constitution. That's the broadest coalition we can muster to defeat this amendment, so pragmatically, and I think properly, that's the argument to go with.

I see your point, although I think that people who are inclined to leave the issue to the states will not lend their support to any amendment, whether it's pro or anti. At least proposing a pro amendment will make the debate two-sided, and give supporters something positive to vote for instead of just something to oppose.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:


Polls show that the overwhelming majority of people do not support gay marriage. This is a democracy, right?

Flame on.

No, it's a republic, with a representative democracy. There are safeguards written in to the constitution to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Actually, that's about 90% of what the constitution is about-- protection from tyranny. Just because the majority of voters might agree to oppress a small group of citizens does not give them the constitutional right to do so.

Maybe you should read the thing.

CV

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by timster:
Oh, so you're saying that its really trivial for a gay couple to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for lawyer to draft up an ironclad will that will ensure the partner's security in the case of another partner's death? And even those wills can be challenged by the survivor's family (and even sometimes successfully!)

That the gay couple will have to carry around legal powers-of-attorney papers for the rest of their lives (which they also had to pay an attorney to do) to ensure that they are able to visit their partner in the hospital should one of them become sick?

That the gay couple will also have to carry around yet another stack of legal powers-of-attorney papers (which they again will have to pay an attorney to do) for the entire duration of any children their partner might have, to ensure that they are able to make decisions regarding their childrens welfare in the case of the death or incapiticance of their partner.

That gay couples don't need the financial benefits that comes with filing taxes jointly?

That maybe gay couples just want to be able to say they are married? Financial and legal considerations aside.

And all of this above, can be acheived by some drunk pop-star in Las Vegas in less than five minutes, for what.. $50 bucks?

And you call that equal rights? What a joke.

I don't think I said anything about equal rights. To answer your questions: yes.

It's the hospital that sets policy on who can visit those who are ill. Why aren't you upset with them for not changing their policy?

Gay couples can say they are married now. Why does the state have to license it?

Gay couples may need the financial benefits that comes with filing taxes jointly. That's my point. Gay couples are proposing these changes for financial reasons, not out of love.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by chris v:
Just because the majority of voters might agree to oppress a small group of citizens does not give them the constitutional right to do so.

And how is banning gay marriage "opressing" someone? I haven't said they can't get married. I said I don't support the state licensing it.



FYI.....I'm going to work soon, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to the flurry of comments that are sure to posted......

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
And how is banning gay marriage "opressing" someone? I haven't said they can't get married. I said I don't support the state licensing it.

We are talking here about civil marriage. State licensing is marriage for the purposes of what we are discussing.

When you say that gay couples can already get married, what you mean is we can shack up. That's true, but irrelevant. The issue here is how the government treats us, not how we treat each other.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
I don't think I said anything about equal rights. To answer your questions: yes.

It's the hospital that sets policy on who can visit those who are ill. Why aren't you upset with them for not changing their policy?

Gay couples can say they are married now. Why does the state have to license it?

Gay couples may need the financial benefits that comes with filing taxes jointly. That's my point. Gay couples are proposing these changes for financial reasons, not out of love.

Hey.. y'know, I think you're on to something here. Why does the state license marriages at all?

I mean, I've seen lots of couples that don't love each other but hold a state-licensed marriage license. I can tell because of my super-sensitive and highly tuned telepathic abilities. I just know things, man.

I just wonder how long the state will allow these fraudulent marriages of convenience to continue. After all, if they want to get married out of love, why does the state need to license it?

Down with marriage, man! All of it!

[macvillage.net]

What about "no party"?

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We are talking here about civil marriage. State licensing is marriage for the purposes of what we are discussing.

When you say that gay couples can already get married, what you mean is we can shack up. That's true, but irrelevant. The issue here is how the government treats us, not how we treat each other.

But even further, it's how hospitals/government/other institutions treat gays. As I stated earlier, why change the marriage problem when the actual root of the problem is that a hospital won't allow same-sex couples to care for/visit each other? Or how the IRS won't allow gay couples the benefits of marriage?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
But even further, it's how hospitals/government/other institutions treat gays. As I stated earlier, why change the marriage problem when the actual root of the problem is that a hospital won't allow same-sex couples to care for/visit each other? Or how the IRS won't allow gay couples the benefits of marriage?

What I think people don't realize is just how many things flow organically from being the spouse of another person. It really isn't possible to contract your way around this. From a legal standpoint, you either are a spouse, or you are not.

The thing is to separate which "rights" you are talking about. The legal rights that flow from marriage aren't the rights being infringed. The right being infringed is the basic right to be treated equally by your government and not to be singled out for unequal treatment by the majority simply because they don't like the group that you belong to.

The other issues you raise, while practically very important, merely flow from the legal status of being married. They aren't rights in the same way as the basic right to be treated equally.

But don't trivialize them by saying it's just a financial matter. It goes far beyond that. For example, the immunity given spouses against testifying against one another at trial. Imagine if you had the full weight of the state bearing down on you and threatening to send you to jail for contempt unless you testify against the one you love? We've decided that is so horrible that we don't subject spouses to that pressure and because we don't want the state in effect having a little spy in every relationship. What legitimate reason is there to not give same-sex couples the same treatment? Are they any less human?

This issue is a thicket. The simplest way out is simply for the government to treat everyone the same regardless of the genders involved.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
But even further, it's how hospitals/government/other institutions treat gays. As I stated earlier, why change the marriage problem when the actual root of the problem is that a hospital won't allow same-sex couples to care for/visit each other? Or how the IRS won't allow gay couples the benefits of marriage?

Are you saying that a heterosexual couple that isn't married can make medical decisions for each other? And that they can get tax benefits from the IRS? Come on... The hospitals have a policy that is married vs. unmarried. The IRS has a policy that is married vs. unmarried. It has nothing to do with being straight of gay. They are not the root of the problem, they are consequences of the problem which is that gays cannot marry.

There is a lot more to it than just money. Not all the legalities involved are financial. Just imagine, for one second, if you couldn't get married. That you just couldn't.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Where is the "Don't care" option. I mean its none of my business who marrys who.

With that attitude, you should be opposed. It's no business of the government either. They should just recognize two people wanting to get married, not worry about if they each have the proper plumbing.

[chris v]

Hmmm... 38 to 7 (so far). Did the White House mis-judge this so-called "hot button" issue?

CV

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by chris v:
Hmmm... 38 to 7 (so far). Did the White House mis-judge this so-called "hot button" issue?

CV

Unfortunately, I don't think that the MacNN forums are an accurate representation of the nation as a whole. (Or maybe that's fortunate. )

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But people like Kerry and Edwards officially oppose equal marriage rights. And polls indicate that most Americans agree.

fWIW, on an tv interview this morning Kerry stated he was opposed to gay marriage, BUT was also opposed to an amendment banning it. He said it belongs to the states to decide.
I agree that's not as progressive as I'd prefer myself, but it at least does allow for the situation to improve over time.

and on another note: I had to do a graphic on this last night and one interesting thing comes out: the President has nothing whatsoever to do with amending the constitution. He can blather all he wants about it, but he's not involved in proposing one, nor does he have the right to veto or affirm one. Only congress, by 2/3 vote can even propose one, and after that, it goes to all the governors, who then present it to every state legislature, THEN, only after 38 of 50 states ratify it, will it become an amendment.

For Bush to make it a campaign platform is not only electioneering and using a wedge issue to drive up votes from the religious right, its dishonest to imply he could actually bring one about, even if he wanted to.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Rev-O:
If the drooling idiot-head W. is so opposed to gay marriage, let him try and pass legislation, don't amend the f***ing Constitution for this. Amending the Constitution is serious stuff.

Weren't those that allowed gay marriage circumventing the current law?
What do they gain by having the right to get married? Don't tell me healthcare, because that is bologney.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
fWIW, on an tv interview this morning Kerry stated he was opposed to gay marriage, BUT was also opposed to an amendment banning it. He said it belongs to the states to decide.
I agree that's not as progressive as I'd prefer myself, but it at least does allow for the situation to improve over time.

and on another note: I had to do a graphic on this last night and one interesting thing comes out: the President has nothing whatsoever to do with amending the constitution. He can blather all he wants about it, but he's not involved in proposing one, nor does he have the right to veto or affirm one. Only congress, by 2/3 vote can even propose one, and after that, it goes to all the governors, who then present it to every state legislature, THEN, only after 38 of 50 states ratify it, will it become an amendment.

For Bush to make it a campaign platform is not only electioneering and using a wedge issue to drive up votes from the religious right, its dishonest to imply he could actually bring one about, even if he wanted to.

Was it a wedge issue when Clinton did it? Why must you continually spout, obvious talking points from the Democrat's handbook?

Think for yourself.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Unfortunately, I don't think that the MacNN forums are an accurate representation of the nation as a whole. (Or maybe that's fortunate. )

Poll answer: fortunate

Lerk: I'm glad the graphic revealed this to you. More's the shame that it didn't stick with you when you were taught it in high school civics, or that it isn't that easily remembered by the general populace from those same lessons.

I'm with Dick Cheney, who says "...people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area…. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.”

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
But even further, it's how hospitals/government/other institutions treat gays. As I stated earlier, why change the marriage problem when the actual root of the problem is that a hospital won't allow same-sex couples to care for/visit each other? Or how the IRS won't allow gay couples the benefits of marriage?

Wrong. Tell me one case where a loved one was turned away by the hospital.
You won't find one. It is the immediate family that might disprove and be able to turn one away, but that is it. They can still turn you away if you are married. IRS Benefits? You are joking right? We don't have any benefits, we have penalties. MARRIAGE TAX.

Your argument is a falsehood.

[forkies]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Think for yourself.

how do you know he's not already?

get over yourself

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and on another note: I had to do a graphic on this last night and one interesting thing comes out: the President has nothing whatsoever to do with amending the constitution. He can blather all he wants about it, but he's not involved in proposing one, nor does he have the right to veto or affirm one. Only congress, by 2/3 vote can even propose one, and after that, it goes to all the governors, who then present it to every state legislature, THEN, only after 38 of 50 states ratify it, will it become an amendment.

For Bush to make it a campaign platform is not only electioneering and using a wedge issue to drive up votes from the religious right, its dishonest to imply he could actually bring one about, even if he wanted to.

He's counting on the fact that it would never pass. That way he can pander to the religious right base without actually worrying about the legal consequences. I'm sure that if it were up to him alone, the issue would just go away.

The Dems are pandering as well, just less so. Unfortunately, because they're trying to play both sides of the issue, they look more weasely. Watching Edwards deal with the question yesterday was painful.

Hopefully the Republicans will crow about it enough at the convention that it'll backfire on them. But they learned their lesson in 1992 and 96 and probably won't let any holy rollers take the podium. Bush is getting the fireworks out of the way now to appeal to the base, then they'll soft-pedal it the rest of the way.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Wrong. Tell me one case where a loved one was turned away by the hospital.
You won't find one. It is the immediate family that might disprove and be able to turn one away, but that is it. They can still turn you away if you are married. IRS Benefits? You are joking right? We don't have any benefits, we have penalties. MARRIAGE TAX.

Your argument is a falsehood.

Oh, good - by your reasoning, there's no reason to have civil marriage at all, for anybody. Since there are no advantages, let's do away with the institution altogether.

Oh, I know what you're going to say: What about the children? I dunno, ask Liza Minnelli. Or Newt Gingrich.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What do they gain by having the right to get married? Don't tell me healthcare, because that is bologney.

Have you even read this or the other thread? There are some well written posts here as to why this is important. Agree or don't, but at least try to keep up.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Think for yourself.

Funny how you whine and moan about others being rude in your Passion thread, yet you seem to have little compunction about using similar behavior here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
fWIW, on an tv interview this morning Kerry stated he was opposed to gay marriage, BUT was also opposed to an amendment banning it. He said it belongs to the states to decide.
I agree that's not as progressive as I'd prefer myself, but it at least does allow for the situation to improve over time.

and on another note: I had to do a graphic on this last night and one interesting thing comes out: the President has nothing whatsoever to do with amending the constitution. He can blather all he wants about it, but he's not involved in proposing one, nor does he have the right to veto or affirm one. Only congress, by 2/3 vote can even propose one, and after that, it goes to all the governors, who then present it to every state legislature, THEN, only after 38 of 50 states ratify it, will it become an amendment.

For Bush to make it a campaign platform is not only electioneering and using a wedge issue to drive up votes from the religious right, its dishonest to imply he could actually bring one about, even if he wanted to.

On Kerry, I agree. His position is neutrality in the face of an invasion. That's certainly better than joining the charge. As I tried to say above, that position can be part of a broad coalition to stop the amendment, which at this moment is really all I care about. We can also include people who might be personally hostile to gay rights (i.e. more so than Kerry), but who just don't want to amend the constitution. I don't really care so long as we block this thing.

You are right about the amendment process. The president has no official role. But he is the head of the Republican Party and he has a huge amount of influence. That's what is dangerous here.

There are, however, some additional wrinkles. First, there are two ways to propose an amendment. Everyone knows that it takes 2/3 votes in each house for Congress to propose one. But also a supermajority of 2/3 of the state legislatures could call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. If they did that, Congress would be bypassed. In a Constitutional Convention, you wouldn't need a 2/3 vote as in Congress, you could pass it by a simple majority of the delegates.

Whether the amendment is proposed by Congress or by a Constitutional Convention, it would then go to the states to be ratified. to a Constitutional Convention, then it goes to the states for ratification. Once again, there are two ways this can be done. ither 38 states (that is, 3/4) must vote by simple majority of both their respective houses to ratify. Alternatively, states can choose to ratify by simple majorities present at special conventions.

The bottom line is that the Constitutional Amendment process is hard, but not quite as hard as people have been saying. The Eleventh Amendment, for example, passed in a matter of months. The 27th, on the other hand, took 201 years.

All this is in Article V of the Constitution if you want to check that I have it right. As you can tell it is complex. I hope your graphic was a flow diagram.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
IRS Benefits? You are joking right? We don't have any benefits, we have penalties. MARRIAGE TAX.

Your argument is a falsehood.

There is no marriage "tax" or penalty. It depends on your situation. When I was first married, my wife wasn't working at all. My taxes went down. Then when she started working, our taxes went up, relative to what they would have been had we remained single.

Here's a good rundown of the various rights and benefits you obtain when getting married.

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.



Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes_and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.



Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.



Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.



Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.



Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.



Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.



Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.



Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.



Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium_(loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Weren't those that allowed gay marriage circumventing the current law?

Those places that are experimenting with gay marriage are using civil rights as the basis: they are saying that gay people should already have this right, and the current law is wrong.

I think the San Francisco Mayor is going to be in hot water over this, since it's not his job to pick and choose which laws to enforce (although this stunt will probably get him votes). (edit/addition: If Ashcroft did the same thing in his capacity as attorney general, those same San Francisco voters would be calling for his head on a platter).

But it is the job of the judges in Massachusetts to interpret the law, and they concluded that the Massachusetts Constitution does not prevent same-sex marriages, and that "civil unions" are not good enough. They didn't change anything, they just clarified what was already there.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Those places that are experimenting with gay marriage are using civil rights as the basis: they are saying that gay people should already have this right, and the current law is wrong.

I think the San Francisco Mayor is going to be in hot water over this, since it's not his job to pick and choose which laws to enforce (although this stunt will probably get him votes.

But it is the job of the judges in Massachusetts to interpret the law, and they concluded that the Massachusetts Constitution does not prevent same-sex marriages, and that "civil unions" are not good enough. They didn't change anything, they just clarified what was already there.

So, you are born gay? It isn't a life choice?

Civil rights don't apply here, only if you were born this way. So, it is genetic?
Like being black? Unless you are arguing being black is a life choice...

It is a lifestyle = Being Gay. Isn't that what is shoved down our throats every day?
Which is it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So, you are born gay? It isn't a life choice?

Civil rights don't apply here, only if you were born this way. So, it is genetic?
Like being black? Unless you are arguing being black is a life choice...

It is a lifestyle = Being Gay. Isn't that what is shoved down our throats every day?
Which is it?

It's not a choice. At least, it's not a choice that I recall making. In any case, it wouldn't matter if it were a choice. Religion is a choice. You still can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

Gay people don't have "lifestyles," we have lives. Which is what you should go get instead of trying to run those of others.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So, you are born gay? It isn't a life choice?

Civil rights don't apply here, only if you were born this way. So, it is genetic?
Like being black? Unless you are arguing being black is a life choice...

It is a lifestyle = Being Gay. Isn't that what is shoved down our throats every day?
Which is it?

ghost, why don't you just come right out and say it: you think homosexuality is immoral and don't think the state should sanction it. That's easy, simple, clear, even defensible for a religious person. That way all of your ignorant, smokescreen arguments about marriage benefits and civil rights and so forth won't look so . . . ignorant.

It really would be easier if all the anti-gay marriage people would do this - just admit that they don't like homosexuality - because their other arguments don't hold up to rational analysis. They're just smokescreens for prejudice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Here's a good rundown of the various rights and benefits you obtain when getting married.

That's a good list. It's not complete, but it's a good list.

There are in addition a number of other tax benefits. For example, married couples can give each other property without worrying about gift taxes. Unmarried couples may have to pay gift tax. There is also a massive tax break in inheritance taxes for married couples. Estate taxes can have rates around 50%, so this isn't trivial.

I could go on. The point is the list is incomplete, but useful.

[chris v]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So, you are born gay? It isn't a life choice?

Civil rights don't apply here, only if you were born this way. So, it is genetic?
Like being black? Unless you are arguing being black is a life choice...

It is a lifestyle = Being Gay. Isn't that what is shoved down our throats every day?
Which is it?

So. Could you decide to be gay tomorrow? I don't think so. I could no more change my sexual orientation than I could change my skin color, so the "lifestyle choice" thing is utterly specious. The idea of sleeping with some big, burly bear is nauseating to me, and I suppose that the idea of sleeping with women would be equally nauseating to the majority of gay men. To discriminate against gays is the same as discriminating against people because of height or I.Q. Really, who would "choose" a "lifestyle" in which they are reviled, discriminated against, persecuted, and occasionally beaten and killed for it? Sounds like a pretty sucky "choice" to me.

Think of it this way: if you were reviled, discriminated against, persecuted, and occasionally beaten and killed for being heterosexual, and wanting to sleep with women--let's say vaginal intercourse was illegal in 35 states-- (assuming you're male) and that the societal norm was homosexuality, would you be able change your orientation, or would you just have to chance it, and take your lumps, as society dealt them out?

CV

[forkies]

Originally posted by chris v:
The idea of sleeping with some big, burly bear is nauseating to me

that's too bad, they're actually quite cuddly!

[chris v]

Originally posted by forkies:
that's too bad, they're actually quite cuddly!

Dude, I grew up in The Castro. Other than my stepdad, I was the only straight white male in my friggin' neighborhood. Sorry, but nuthin' doing.

CV

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Where is the "Don't care" option. I mean its none of my business who marrys who.

Have you been following anything at all?

Because this amendment is all about REMOVING the "Don't care" option.

If you don't think it's your or anybody's business who marries whom, you are opposed to the amendment.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by chris v:
So. Could you decide to be gay tomorrow? I don't think so. I could no more change my sexual orientation than I could change my skin color, so the "lifestyle choice" thing is utterly specious. The idea of sleeping with some big, burly bear is nauseating to me, and I suppose that the idea of sleeping with women would be equally nauseating to the majority of gay men. To discriminate against gays is the same as discriminating against people because of height or I.Q. Really, who would "choose" a "lifestyle" in which they are reviled, discriminated against, persecuted, and occasionally beaten and killed for it? Sounds like a pretty sucky "choice" to me.

Think of it this way: if you were reviled, discriminated against, persecuted, and occasionally beaten and killed for being heterosexual, and wanting to sleep with women--let's say vaginal intercourse was illegal in 35 states-- (assuming you're male) and that the societal norm was homosexuality, would you be able change your orientation, or would you just have to chance it, and take your lumps, as society dealt them out?

CV

Doesn't one get married to start a family?
If you are born gay, then the civil rights angle is correct. That is what I am saying.
If it is a LIFESTYLE choice as has been tossed around so much, then it isn't ok.

I'm sorry be coming across as being a gay hater, but my last boss was a gay man who's advances I did not appreciate, being a STRAIGHT graphic designer. Needless to say it wasn't 'pretty', and I was fired for some made-up lie. I've come across straight bashing all too often in my career, and yes, it is irritating. I don't like being discriminated against because I am straight.

In addition to my bad experiences with strangers, my cousin who is gay attacked my mother because he's a mean SOB [she's a 4'7" itallian woman], so there is another reason I'm not too keen on the subject. These are my personal experiences, but I'm not closed-minded, just a bit shy on the subject. I don't make rash decisions, or lash out at anyone, but I have received my share of lashings in here from perfect strangers who can't disagree in an intelligent fashion. They are just mean as far as I am concerned, and I will continue to respond to them as I have, with respect and restraint.

It's ok for someone who is Catholic to be bashed over and over again in the media but when it comes to other religions, or race, or sexuality, that is taboo. Nice two-faced culture we live in, no? I was raised to keep my belief's to myself, be respectful of others, and not be overly pridefull. It is why I would wear my cross under my shirt. I don't impose my way of views or life on others and expect the same in return.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I was raised to keep my belief's to myself, be respectful of others, and not be overly pridefull. It is why I would wear my cross under my shirt. I don't impose my way of views or life on others and expect the same in return.

So, can we put you down for opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[forkies]

re: ghost_flash

it's too bad you hold an entire group to blame for what a couple of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE have done to you or those around you. odd,

more focusing on yourself...