Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Genghis12  18840 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: Nov '99
8181_Hoojib
Date Posted: 1/14/04 3:28pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/14/04 3:30pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
A_g...
Right, but you asked for what may be good for society. Not what's good for you.

Your interests and feelings are not the same as Society's interets and feelings. Or rather, you are a part of society.

You are not society.

 

-----signature-----
==========
Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize)
http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146
"Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5495 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/14/04 3:31pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
What compelling reason is there to offer special protection to this intangible union. Given that no one else has such a thing.

Reiterating my above statement, this has never been about special recognition, but rather equal recognition.

Also, AS STATED ABOVE, for compelling reasons that were not only argued but upheld in court, I refer you to me previous posts. Should you choose... again... to ignore these, expect no further reply or recognition from me.

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Genghis12  18840 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: Nov '99
8181_Hoojib
Date Posted: 1/14/04 3:35pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Cheveyo...
"Reiterating my above statement, this has never been about special recognition, but rather equal recognition."

Reiterating my above statement, they already have equal recognition. And what is being asked for is SPECIAL recognition.

So, what reason is there for this minority class to have even more recognition beyond what is granted everyone else?

If you choose not to give any reasons, the question still remains despite your silence on the matter.

 

-----signature-----
==========
Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize)
http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146
"Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anakin_girl  14917 posts
Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR
Charlotte , NC
 Registered: Oct '00
48285_Good Morning Galaxy
Date Posted: 1/14/04 3:53pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/14/04 3:54pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
Genghis: What makes you think society is not comprised of many people like me? Or do you think I'm that much of a freak?

Also, marriages not based on love are generally unhappy marriages. How on earth are unhappy marriages good for society?

And you never answered my question: are you in favor of arranged, trophy marriages as opposed to marriages based on love?

 

-----signature-----
"A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5495 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/14/04 4:26pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/14/04 4:54pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
So, what reason is there for this minority class to have even more recognition beyond what is granted everyone else?

Here is what is granted to "everyone else", of which this "minority" is seeking EQUAL CONSIDERATION: (I am REITERATING the following because you appear negligent in comprehending my previous posts.)
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
  • joint parenting;

  • joint adoption;

  • joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

  • status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

  • joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

  • dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

  • immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

  • inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

  • joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

  • inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

  • benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

  • spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

  • veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

  • joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

  • wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

  • bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

  • decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

  • crime victims' recovery benefits;

  • loss of consortium tort benefits;

  • domestic violence protection orders;

  • judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

  • and more....


Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

WHY DO SOME SAME-SEX COUPLES WANT TO MARRY?
GLAD's brief before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- the highest court in the state -- was heard on 2003-MAR-4. The couples all want to marry so that society will recognize their relationship. The brief also included a brief description of some of the practical reasons why the seven couples seek the permission to marry:
  • One of the plaintiffs, Hillary Goodridge, stated in the lawsuit that even with a health care proxy she had difficulty getting in to see her partner, Julie Goodridge, when she had undergone a difficult delivery and their baby was in intensive care.

  • A lesbian couple who have been together for three decades, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, are concerned about financial problems as they approach the age of retirement. They face taxes that married couples wouldn't have in passing on their home and joint psychotherapy practice if one of them died.

  • David Wilson was treated as a stranger by a hospital emergency department when his partner of thirteen years had a heart attack, and died. David's current partner, Robert Compton, has health problems which require emergency care and they are concerned the earlier experience may be repeated.

  • Edward Balmelli would like to name Michael Horgan, his partner of nine years, as beneficiary of his pension plan. He cannot at this time, because they are not allowed to marry and be recognized as spouses.

  • Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade have been partners for 21 years. They seek marriage in order to provide greater legal security for their family. Their need is particularly acute since Ellen was diagnosed with breast cancer.

  • Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell have been together for 14 years and have an adopted daughter. Gary was unable to obtain a family health insurance policy through his place of work. They had to obtain separate policies at a considerable additional expense. They want the security of marriage for their own sake and for their daughter. They also want to register home jointly, but would have to incur tax penalties which would not apply if they were married.

  • Heidi Norton and Gina Smith are raising two sons, aged two and five years. They have jointly adopted their sons. However, they "worry that Gina's relationship to their sons will not be respected; and despite preparation of legal documents, they worry about what will happen if they confront an emergency in an unfamiliar town."



As the average layman can see, there is no "special" recognition being requested (or demanded) for homosexual couples. Every item for which they are asking is already given to heterosexual couples. It is not a case of elevating homosexual rights and responsibilities, but of bringing them in line so as to be equal rights and responsibilites to those given freely to heterosexuals.


Given the above testimonies, someone arguing adamently that these unions should not be legally recognized--and that all rights and responsibilities therefor be granted unto them--could concievably be construed or "misconstrued" as seeking to specifically do harm against this minority for the sole reason of its minority status. Such acts would fall under the heading of intolerance (i.e., bigotry).


 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44  15123 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 1/14/04 4:54pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
How many of those 1,400 legal rights are unique to marriage?

Just quickly glancing over your list, I see a large number that aren't dependent on martial status.

The actual number of benefits specifically tied to martial status are quite small, and are directly related to the institution of marriage.

No different than any other government entitlement program that has specific requirements.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5495 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/14/04 4:56pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/14/04 5:00pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
According to the law books, Mr44, all of the above listed, are benefits granted specifically by marriage.

EDIT: Unless you can refute the following:
The following material [see above] was provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is used by permission. The list appears to be based on a request by Representative Henry J Hyde, in 1996-SEP. He was chairperson of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and asked the General Accounting Office "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status." Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online.


source

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
womberty  3669 posts
Registered: Jan '02
Date Posted: 1/14/04 5:21pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Just quickly glancing over your list, I see a large number that aren't dependent on martial status.

The actual number of benefits specifically tied to martial status are quite small, and are directly related to the institution of marriage.

The ones that are conferred to people other than spouses would probably relate to someone who is a close relative by birth or adoption.

Marriage is a way to make someone officially recognized as a member of your family. If I want to do that with someone of the same gender as me, what do you suggest I do? Adopt them? Even then, there will be benefits that are denied, such as the right not to testify against the other person in a court of law.

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44  15123 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 1/14/04 5:37pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Um, sure...

Unless we have differing definitions of contingent, it is not synonymous with unique to.

As in:

your grade is contingent on passing the tests. However, you can either study or cheat to get a passing grade.

I'm not disagreeing that those benefits are contingent on marriage, but they can also be achieved by other means.

But let's look at some of them, shall we?

Joint parenting/adoption- Adoption is not based on martial status. It may help, but it is not required. I think Genghis provided many examples of gay parents in New Orleans alone, to discount this.

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent- Ever hear of a surviver contingency plan? The patient simply lists who he wishes to be granted visitaion rights/decision making authority.

It simply takes some prior planning, because it has to be completed before the serious incident, but that shouldn't be an issue if two people love each other.

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; Again, any two people can enter into financial agreements. Two complete strangers can buy a car and get joint insurance for it, if they wish.

Property protection/inheritance- You answered your own question here.. Simply get a will.

I don't know what you mean by veteran's benefits, as veterans get these, regardless of martial status

Anyone can file for orders of protection, criminal protection.

So basically, married people get to file joint taxes, and customs declarations, which is simply more convenent, than an actual right.

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity is codified as an actual unique martial protection.

Your "personal accounts" are based more on individual concerns of the people, than actual prohibitions.

If for example, Gloria and Linda are concerned about their house, they should fill out a will.

Insurance for the adoptive child example would be covered by the adoptive parent. (Which also kind of disproves your adoption restriction above)

Again, the key words in all of the accounts are "worried" and "concerned."

If all these people actually took steps to address their concerns, rather than trying to make a point, they would all be better off.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anakin_girl  14917 posts
Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR
Charlotte , NC
 Registered: Oct '00
48285_Good Morning Galaxy
Date Posted: 1/14/04 5:46pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
It simply takes some prior planning, because it has to be completed before the serious incident, but that shouldn't be an issue if two people love each other.

It's the principle of the matter, Mr44. If I want my husband to inherit my property when I die, I don't have to fill out a will. He automatically inherits it because we're married. However, if my homosexual male friend wants his partner to inherit his property when he dies, he has to fill out a will. Why should he have to go to extra trouble simply because his partner has the same genitalia that he does? It's not a matter of his being willing, it's a matter of principle. He shouldn't have to.

Also, if my husband does something wrong, I am immune from testifying against him in court. If my friend's partner does something wrong, he is not immune from testifying against him, again, simply because they have the same genitalia and don't have the option of marrying. This is neither fair nor right, because there is no reason whatsoever other than religious bias or bias against people who don't have children, to withhold the privilege of marrying (each other) from my friend and his partner.

 

-----signature-----
"A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44  15123 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 1/14/04 6:01pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
It's the principle of the matter..

And that is the heart of the issue here.

Instead of reaching some workable compromise, a well esatblished social structure has to be changed, all over some vague concept of fairness.

It reminds me of that gay Canadian couple who had to fill out seperate customs forms, and refused to do so.

Look, joint declarations are a benefit to a certain category.

Millions of single travellers who are together, have to fill out seperate customs forms, even if married couples don't. Why isn't it an issue for them?

However, the mere suggestion that two gay men have to fill out seperate forms is om par with the worst travesties in all of history.

Yes, married couples get things like automatic joint tax filing ability, or automatic inheritence.

However, this can be achieved by anyone else
by simply having prior planning. Make a will, or enter into a joint ownership agreement.

Like was pointed out before, what is the reason to change the very social definition of marriage, that cannot be reached by a compromise solution?

Instead, people had to push the issue, simply out of a vague sense of fairness.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anakin_girl  14917 posts
Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR
Charlotte , NC
 Registered: Oct '00
48285_Good Morning Galaxy
Date Posted: 1/14/04 6:12pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
The sense of fairness isn't vague, it's very real. And it's a damn good reason to change the "social definition" of marriage, particularly when there is no good reason to keep that definition other than some people's belief that you shouldn't change something just because it has been there, or some people's religious beliefs, or some people's beliefs that the purpose of coupling is to reproduce.

Years ago, people considered African-Americans being enslaved to whites as an "established social structure" that they didn't want changed. They also considered women's alleged inferiority to men as an "established social structure". There was plenty of reason to change these "social structures", and there is plenty of reason to change this one, which arbitrarily discriminates against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry their partners, as well.

 

-----signature-----
"A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
womberty  3669 posts
Registered: Jan '02
Date Posted: 1/14/04 6:26pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
I'm not disagreeing that those benefits are contingent on marriage, but they can also be achieved by other means.

So, how does one achieve the right not to testify against a person other than their spouse, short of becoming a lawyer or priest?


joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; Again, any two people can enter into financial agreements. Two complete strangers can buy a car and get joint insurance for it, if they wish.

Actually, some insurance companies refuse to insure unrelated people, and those who do allow it charge much more than they would a married couple.


And, in case you hadn't noticed, your statements that other couples can achieve some of these benefits doesn't really address the fact that it's far more difficult - and requires more work and planning - than applying for a marriage license. Not only that, how does a gay partner convince the hospital that they have the right to be in the same room as the person receiving treatment? Will they have to carry around a copy of a legal document outlining that right?


Like was pointed out before, what is the reason to change the very social definition of marriage, that cannot be reached by a compromise solution?

The compromise solution is to have government stop regulating marriage, so that it remains a social definition, and either let the government regulate "civil unions" for all types of couples or offer no special benefits at all for couples who pledge their lives to each other.

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5495 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/14/04 6:37pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
The compromise solution is to have government stop regulating marriage, so that it remains a social definition, and either let the government regulate "civil unions" for all types of couples or offer no special benefits at all for couples who pledge their lives to each other.

And... we segue back to the topic! That took a while.

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anakin_girl  14917 posts
Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR
Charlotte , NC
 Registered: Oct '00
48285_Good Morning Galaxy
Date Posted: 1/14/04 6:41pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Here's my take:

If the government is only going to sanction marriage in the hopes of creating more Rockwellian nuclear families and is not going to sanction it for anyone who wants to marry, then they should not be sanctioning it at all.

 

-----signature-----
"A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 » - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64213) 0.703