Marriage simplified: Straights can, Gays can't...

[LeftHander]

Gay people cannot get married and have a legally recognized marriage in most states.

Tell the asshat judge in Maryland how that is not discrimination?

How is that you can point to two unrelated people in love as say you can be married...and then point to two other unrelated people in love and say you cannot?

What kind of goofy Bizarro World logic does a "legal" professional use to justify this BLATANT DISREGARD for equality?

You can distill any argument on why marriage should be only for heterosexual couples into a thick sticky homophobic reality.

Maybe we should simply make it so White Male Republicans can no longer attend art gallerys, restaurants other than chain steak houses, maybe we should make it so they cannot attend any sporting even other than NASCAR or FOOTBALL...see how absurd that is...denying marriage rights to Gay people is NO LESS ABSURD.

Any legal professional who argues otherwise is flat out dumb or simply part of a larger agenda to wipe out gay people.

[driver8]

1. All men are created equal...

Unless you are gay, then you are treated like a second class citizen.

On the other hand, if you are a rich, white, rethuglican...you get all sorts of privileges that no one else gets.

Maybe that "all men are created equal" statement isn't true?

[walldude]

2. What makes you say that?

My family's health care is just as good as any member of congress. Well.. it would be if I could get some...

[King Coal]

36. If we had universal health care we could get more of these gays cured.

For the flame-bait impaired: :sarcasm:

Yuck Yuck Yuck

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." n/t

[againes654]

3. I don't believe

that our government should have a say in this. Contrary to repuke belief, not letting gay people get married is not going to prevent them from being gay.

[driver8]

4. It's the "sanctity of marriage" that they are all worried about.

They can simply ignore gay people...but marriage is a sacred institution!!

[terrya]

5. Does that dipshit know that they CAN get married in Massachusetts?

And the sky hasn't fallen, millions of heterosexual marriages haven't collapsed, etc, etc. Life goes on before in Massachusetts.

The last legal roadblock to same sex marriage disappeared when the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Lawrence v Texas" in 2003, which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. There are no, zero, zip, legal obstacles to same-sex marriage now. Except for the states that have wrongly adopted amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage in their constitutions.

To say that a gay or lesbian couple can't get married because you say so or because of a person's bigotry is not a reason to deny that couple's legal rights.

[hang a left]

6. Just a question from a woman that has been married two times...

and now am living with a man for eight years, which makes us common law.

Is it that you just want to have the ritual and you won't feel recognized as a couple in commitment without it?

Or

You would like to receive the same benefits ie: insurance, taxes, et al

The reason I ask this is because, I have been married, I found it over-rated and wanting. However, I was never raised with the "once you marry it is forever" value.

I am just curious as to the attraction to the certificate.

On Edit: Don't get me wrong. I don't think that you should be denied ANYTHING. I am just wondering where your major beef is.

[againes654]

7. I think, and I don't know for sure, but

I think it is the fact that the gov has said they can't. I would be pissed if the gov. told me I couldn't marry the person that I loved just because they had the same organs as me, even if I didn't want to get married.

Just MHO.

[hang a left]

10. Frankly, if my mailman told me I couldn't do something I would show him...

how I could. So I understand that. But I think there is something deeper than that going on. I wish the OP would respond because I would really like to understand.

[againes654]

13. Oh, I agree

there is definatly something deeper. Sad Sad Sad the state that our nation is in.

[WhollyHeretic]

12. It's about civil rights. There are hundreds of things affected by marriage

Here are a few

Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions

Joint insurance for home, health and auto

Immigration and residency for partners from other countries

Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will. Even with a will, the surviving partner must pay inheritance taxes, where a heterosexual spouse doesn't.

Joint parenting, Joint adoption

Joint foster care, custody & visitation including non-biological parents

Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or vacates

Inheritance of jointly owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship

Survivor Benefits such as Annuities, Social Security, Pension Plans, Medicare

Exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of a partner who co-owns a home

Spousal discounts on medical care, education and home loans

Joint filing of tax returns

Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children

Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child

Funeral decision making power for deceased partners

Crime victim’s recovery benefits

Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity (gays can be forced to testify against their partners, heterosexuals can't).

Mandatory economic privileges and benefits from employers

Retirement Savings - married spouses can roll 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes while gays pay up to 70% in taxes & penalties even when claimed as a beneficiary.

Home protection - Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell homes to pay for high medical or nursing home bills while gays & lesbians have no protection.

Domestic violence protection orders

Divorce protections such as community property and child support

Joint filing of customs claims when traveling

[hang a left]

17. Ok now I understand...

You want the legal rights that married partners receive.

Well, I have your back.

In California, domestic partners have those rights, even if you are heterosexual ;-). I am not sure you can legally be married, but the partnerships are recognized.

I don't know what all the damn fuss is about. There are just a bunch of freaks out there.

[mondo joe]

19. I believe the equal legal benefits is the critical piece, since anyone

can have a ceremony.

[yardwork]

21. Well, every gay person has their own opinion on this matter. I'll offer mine.

As a lesbian who was at one time married to man, I am acutely aware of the difference in legal status between being straight and gay. I've lived in both worlds, and there is a huge difference. Straight married people enjoy about 1,000 legal rights that are denied to gay people living in committed relationships. The only justification given for this unfairness is that some people's interpretation of the Bible is that gay people are wrong. The fact that the same Bible says that it's wrong to divorce, wear mixed fabrics, and eat pork or shellfish hasn't resulted in laws against those things.

So yes, I would like the same legal rights as a gay person that I had as a straight person. Unless somebody can come up with some legitimate, non-religious based justification for denying me and millions of other gay people those rights, I'd like those rights to be given to me immediately. Obviously, that includes the right to marry.

The fact that many gay people might choose not to get married is totally beside the point.

[mitchtv]

41. Just wait til one partner dies

the property gets re-assessed with a change in title and you get charged "gift taxes" for the half of the joint tenancy that "belonged" to the dead partner and you are 65 yrs old and lose your home
OR,
you make the mistake of falling in love with a non citizen
an they cannot enter the US ,while married strates bring in entire families. Always fun.

[shimmergal]

47. Thank you, Hang a Left, for rasing a

pivotal question, which I've _never_ before seen anyone encapsulate so well, in DU or elsewhere.

I too have both been married and in another very close relationship. And like you, found that in the marriage things tended to happen that worked against the personal relationship aspect. Granted, that may be due partly to marriage's patriarchal origins. When both partners disagreed on something we both cared about, the guy could (and did) always "pull rank" to get his way. Presumably that particular ploy wouldn't happen in a same sex marriage.

I certainly think that if two heterosexuals can have their sex bond "certified" by the state, two gays should have the same opportunity. But I'm not sure the state should be doing that for anyone.

Which puts me in a really odd position in this debate!

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Marriage is all about procreation, according to the Washington and Maryland courts

That is the one and only excuse left. But try to underscore the utter hypocricy by making procreation a requirement for marriage, and you get ridiculed in the international media.

[gaspee]

9. religion

is the reason and in this country it shouldn't be, but it is. Any argument against equal marriage rights comes down to religion.

Procreation is an excuse -- and we all know it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. MARRIAGE IN THE US IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION

Apologies for the caps but damn it all, how many times does this need to be said?

There is a legitimate state issue in legitimate personal issue, not to mention property rights, inheritance rights, powers of attorney, access to benefits, insurance, etc., etc., etc. In the United States, all of these rights have always been governed by laws dealing with marriage.

Because of the First Amendment, ALL legal marriage is civil. Because of the First Amendment, NO religious ritual has the power to create a marriage; without the filing of the appropriate CIVIL documents with the appropriate CIVIL authorities in accordance with CIVIL law, there is no marriage in the eyes of the law. Because of the First Amendment, it is ILLEGAL to require any kind of religious ritual in creating a marriage.

Clergy have the authority to countersign marriage licenses only as a matter of law; that exact same power is given to judges and, in Florida, Maine and South Carolina, to notaries public. It would be perfectly legal -- and more constitutional than existing law -- to strip clergy of this limited authority to take a jurat; the First Amendment should make it illegal for clergy to have de facto power as an officer of the court.

That religions use the word "marriage" to describe a religious ceremony is totally, absolutely and utterly irrelevant with regards to civil law. When speaking of marriage in the context of civil law, "marriage" is, always has been and (hopefully) always will be a civil institution in this country. Trying to force through a statutory change from "marriage" to some other word is a meaningless excercise in semantics that will only breed confusion (as three centuries of court precedent become irrelevant -- if it is not "marriage", past rulings about marriage can not apply) and assuage the delicate sensibilities of religious extremists.

[iamthebandfanman]

15. yup, marriage is and has always been primarily

a civic or social arrangement.

marriage exsisted long before modern religions (ie christianity, islam, judeism).

you dont have to go to a church to be married, you can do it at a courthouse so long as you have two witnesses.

THEREFOR

marriage is a SOCIAL institution, not a religious one.

this is just the classic mingling of church and state.

I see nothing wrong with a church not wanting to marry a gay couple, they are a private organisation and as such can deny anyone if they really want to(even tho thats not very godly).
but as far as the government denying a marriage of a gay couple, thats just flat out discimination and goes against the constitution and the bill of rights. it is truely an injustice that the GOVERNMENT can tell you who you can or cant be in love with officially.

Church out of government, and government outa church. thats how it should be.

[yardwork]

24. Thank you. I agree completely.

[gaspee]

43. No Shit

That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be, but all the asshats who have a beef with equal marriage have that beef because they want the rest of us to live by their religions.

All marriages should be civil marriages (and legally are) so they should stick their religious arguements against mariage equality up their asses.

I want someone to come up with a reason to be anti-gay that isn't based in their religion - which is bullshit. And "tradition" is just code for their religious beliefs.

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. Actually, the ass-hats *have* come up with a reason to oppose equal marriage not based on religion

It is the argument that same-sex couples have no right to be married because they can not have naturally conceived children between them. But just try to suggest that mixed-sex couples who can not or will not have children together should likewise be banned from marriage. Go ahead, I double dog dare you. :hi:

[yardwork]

23. In that case, should people be required to pass fertility tests in order to obtain marriage licenses

Suppose a man and a woman ask to be married in Washington and Maryland, but one or both of them is sterile. If marriage is all about procreation, shouldn't they be denied the marriage license?

Suppose two lesbians ask to be married in Washington and Maryland, and one or both of them are already pregnant? If marriage is all about procreation, shouldn't they be allowed to get married?

What about people who adopt?

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. See Washington Initiative 957

I-957. I was the sponsor-of-record and for my efforts got ridiculed not only in the US but as far away as the UK, Greece and Australia. We managed to get a few more than 40,000 signatures, but that was far short of the 224,440 needed to make the ballot.

[yardwork]

31. Good for you! You are a hero.

I didn't know that was your initiative. It demonstrates very effectively how ridiculous the right-wing argument is on this subject.

[Whisp]

40. so a logical next change to the law should be:

couples who have decided not to have children, can't get legally married if procreation is what this is all about.
How about a man and woman who decide to get married and are unable to have children - do they have to get a divorce then?

I know I know. it's so crazy stupid.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. ...

:cry: or :nuke:

thats how i feel about the whole equal marriage situation

[IndianaJones]

16. not quite that simple. nt.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Please elaborate. Why is it not that simple? n/t

[IndianaJones]

20. I'm not that familiar with the case in question. Just based on my experience...

it is not a simple issue.

[yardwork]

25. Please do elaborate. We're standing by.

[IndianaJones]

27. elaborate on why I don't think its simple?

I believe this country is a good enough example of that. Boiling issues down to these good guy/bad guy scenarios accomplishes nothing. All my opinion of course, which is not very popular at times.

[yardwork]

30. So how do you decide who to vote for? Flip a coin?

Sometimes things DO boil down to a decision. Either something is wrong or not.

[IndianaJones]

33. I vote Democrat simply because they will at least say they will do something.

Just like they say they will do something about equal education access for minorities. It keeps us voting for them and giving them money. In other words, the hatred is hidden and not in the open like the other side.

[xchrom]

22. i hope that you don't actually believe that the judge didn't think it was discrimination?

of course he -- or she -- believes it's discrimination.

this is a phrase used in order to come off as naive or innocent somehow.

to show that the person doing the discriminating has a ''heartfelt'' logic behind their ruling.

social conservatives are keeping marriage out of reach in order to control something -- mostly to control genitals.

and what people do with genitals.

since the seventies -- social conservatives have been trying to re-exert control that seems to be slipping away from them.

but what i'm concerned with is that people here -- or anywhere actually think that these folk believe what they're saying about gay folk -- they don't believe it -- not for a minute.

they KNOW it's discrimination.

[Bassic]

29. It's discrimination, but it doesn't matter because they're just gays.

That's pretty much what this decision means.

[Bluebear]

32. But God didn't make Adam and Steve.

:banghead:

[yardwork]

34. Well, She/He did, actually.

I mean, Adam and Steve are here, so the Goddess/God must have made them, right? The Goddess/God can do anything, and She/He made Adam and Steve, so that must be ok, right?

Of all the stupid slogans devised by the right-wing, I think that one is the stupidest.

[Bluebear]

35. LOL I ask the person saying that "Oh, who made Steve, then?"

They look at me all confused, head-tilted like a puppy.

[yardwork]

37. On second thought, maybe it was S S S SAAAAATAAAAANNNNN!

But that would mean that their God was not all-powerful, which is a conundrum. For them.

[Whisp]

38. I will never understand why this is so.

why this crotch gazing and judgements on what gonads belong in what private places ....

it just totally boggles my brain why gay people can't get legally married and why people are just so damned stupid and hung up on this.

[slackmaster]

39. Zen question for any member of a same-sex couple or other interested party

If you marry your partner in Hawaii and go to Yellowstone National Park for your honeymoon, are you actually married while you are in Wyoming?

[mitchtv]

42. No cause you can't marry in HI

only in MA.

[gaspee]

44. and there's a case to be made

that gay marriage is legal in RI as well since the RI state attorney general has given the official legal opinion that RI should recognize MA marriages and a RI family court judge has heard the divorce of a RI couple married in MA.

[slackmaster]

48. OK, how about the same question with MA substituted for HI?

If you get a Massachussets marriage license and honeymoon in Wyoming, has your marriage actually been consumated?

To get to the point, what is the value of your marriage if you decide to move to any other state that won't honor it?

States reciprocally honor each others' marriage licenses just as the negotiation of checks is defined in a Uniform Commercial Code, so a check written in one state is a valid unconditional promise to pay in any other state. Until a national definition of marriage includes same-sex couples, it seems to me rather futile to pursue it at a state level.

[mitchtv]

49. It would be ok to move to RI maybe Vermont

WY is a big no if you want to own property, or something else that strateshave an advantage on What are we gonna do Give up? Little by little gains are made. NJ will probably recognize the marriages in MA soon CT also

[Tatiana]

46. I'm so sick of this stupid argument. Let gays get married already!

There is no reason why two people, if they are both in agreement, cannot enter into a civil and legal agreement to cement their love and commitment to one another. That is why I am in favor of civil unions. That's all a "marriage" is, anyway, for legal and governmental purposes. Remove the word "marriage" from the equation and you get rid of the religious (or sacrilegious, depending on your viewpoint) connotation or association. "Civil union" emphasizes, in my opinion, the legal and civil rights being denied gays who want to marry.