What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

KK: I know the laws in Utah have changed now and you would certainly know more than I would about how Mormonism works (I've only met a few Mormons and all of them online, none in RL)--however, the point I was making was that marriage was not always defined as "one man, one woman". But in the Utah case I'll concede if I'm wrong.

However, even if it's true that that's how marriage has always been defined, that's not a good enough reason to keep it that way.

 

womberty:

A clarification:

"Recent history has verified our concerns, and it's also clear that, in your contempt for the rule of law, you think that the tactic is more than justified."

By "your" I meant the second-person plural, referring to the pro-gay-marriage crowd generally. I try to use "y'all" for that, sorry for the misunderstanding.


Even with Utah, I thought that polygamy meant multiple marriages, where each marriage was between one man and one woman. The marriages are initiated separately (or can be, at least), and each wife was only a spouse to her husband, not to the other wives.



But you've said, haven't you, that you support civil unions for gay couples?

So, what benefits would be reserved for heterosexual "marriage", and why?

I support civil unions for more than just gay couples -- including, for instance, a man and his elderly aunt who can no longer care for herself; two old-maid or widowed sisters; and army buddies who don't have real families of their own.

I'm not certain which benefits would be kept exclusively to marriage. To be honest, I think that sort of decision should be left to the states.

 

You could only argue that harm was being done if people were actually using those assault rifles to commit crimes.

what about intent and public protection? they same can be argued fo "possessing" illegal narcotics. You don't have to "show" that you were going to consume them for them to be justified as harmful.

I invite you to the gun control thread so I can explain this.

With all due respect... no way in HELL, ma'am!! I was practically crucified for voicing my opposing opinion in there the first/last time I posted in there. It's one thing to ask me to justify my opinion, but the crap they (and you???) unloaded upon me for my "pansy-passive liberalism". most hate-email I've received came from there... you'll note I don't post my email addy anymore.

(if that forum is indicative of the whole...) Gun owners are mean spirited! (j/k...sorta)

 

Ok, Bubba, DM, and Mr. 44, scream all you want, but you have yet to demonstrate adequetley how the Mayor did anything ILLEGAL.

I'll concede for the sake of credibility that what the Mayor did is not valid and clearly violates the spirit of the law as intended, he is CERTAINLY circumventing the peoples vote.

However, not one of you (save Mr. 44) has been able to concede the possibility that yes, the Mayor maybe issuing invalid licenses, but that issuing gays marriage licenses may TECHNICALLY not be ILLEGAL.

Understand the difference?

 

What is the harm in letting two consenting adults do what they want? Traditional marriage will remain the same & even all marriage within certain churches can stay the same. Just because a marriage is recognized legally doesn't mean that any private church has to recognize or condone it.

 

What is the harm in letting two consenting adults do what they want? Traditional marriage will remain the same & even all marriage within certain churches can stay the same. Just because a marriage is recognized legally doesn't mean that any private church has to recognize or condone it.

Beautiful.

However, problem is, Valkor, that makes entirely too much sense.

 

I support civil unions for more than just gay couples -- including, for instance, a man and his elderly aunt who can no longer care for herself; two old-maid or widowed sisters; and army buddies who don't have real families of their own.

Since when has sex been the basis for marriage? Old army buddies can already marry, if they're not the same gender. There just probably aren't that many old femaly army buddies to go around just yet.

Marriage has been an economic union, but the purpose (I thought) was building family. The union of two different families promotes social stability; therefore, it is in the government's interest to offer this union to people of different families, but not to those who already have a close family link.

However, I agree; it would not have to be about sex or even love, since we don't require those in marriage anyway.


I'm not certain which benefits would be kept exclusively to marriage. To be honest, I think that sort of decision should be left to the states.

But the decision to redefine "marriage" should not?

Would you support a federal marriage amendment if some state was on the verge of passing a law defining marriage as the union of two people (not restricting it to one man and one woman)?


Gun owners are mean spirited!

Now, now - not always. Just whenever we're pulling the trigger.

 

OWM, I'm honsestly slightly confused about what you are asking for...

Is "marriage license abuse" specifcally mentioned in California's penal code? No. You are correct with this observation.. But that's not the nature of the offense.

Newsome would be held under the standard of offical misconduct. (or as a stretch, the forged document statute, but that is unlikely)

An element of misconduct is for an offical to "knowingly perform an act which is fordidden by law to perform."

Now, since California law lists the criteria for marriage, and Newsome knowingly issued licenses in violation of that criteria (regardless of what he believed), it's not a stretch to see what the illegal act is..

Let me give you another example.. Illinois law defines Disorderly Conduct as:

Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another or to provoke a breach of the peace... (I'm sure CA has a similar law)

Now does the law specifically list "playing loud music at a party at 3:00?"

No, but anyone would agree that extremely loud music at 3 in the morning would qualify as a unreasonable breach of the peace...

Additionally, it doesn't matter that the person throwing the party thinks that noise restrictions are a violation of his constitutional rights, that person is still subject to the law.. The fact that Newsome is an elected offical elevates that standard.

Do you think the laws list every single act that could be considered to be a violation? The standard is defined, not the exceptions.

As a defense attorney, is that going to be one of your strategies?

"I'm sorry your honor..I fully admit that my client stabbed the victim to death..However, he doesn't agree with the law..Besides, stabbing isn't specifically listed in the murder statute..."

Good luck with that one...

EDIT: Just to add, I don't think Newsome will be charged. No SA in that area would file those charges..

 

Valkor, Guin, look at again at the question, "What is the harm in letting two consenting adults do what they want?"

The answer is, there is no harm -- or at least, not enough to justify a law making their behavior illegal.

But the issue is not what two people can do in their privacy of their own lives. The issue is whether they can force a representative government to recognize and sanction what they do. The moment they petition the government for the government's blessing, it immediately becomes the business of everyone who elects officials to that government.


womberty, marriages can be annulled if they have not consummated. In other words, legally, sex has quite a bit to do with marriage. If you wish to argue that it shouldn't be that way, fine, but that's yet another change and not a reflection of current law.


The problem with letting the states define marriage as they wish is the risk that, say, a gay couple would get married in one state that recognizes gay marriage or move to -- or even travel through -- a state that does not. (Will marriages change from valid to invalid as a couple travels cross-country? What if a spouse requires medical care along the way?)

Our concern about this risk is not only reasonable, it seems pressing since gays are traveling to San Francisco to get marriage licenses, return to their home states, and challenge their home states' current laws.

Federalism cannot work if one group is willing to subvert the spirit of federalism getting married in one state to bring up lawsuits in other states. Moreover, federalism is not the solution if the issue is -- as y'all insist it is -- a civil rights issue.

Y'all have made a compromise of federalism simply impossible.

 

womberty, marriages can be annulled if they have not consummated. In other words, legally, sex has quite a bit to do with marriage.

My point was, they are not automatically invalidated because the couple has not had sex. It can only be challenged on those grounds by a member of the marriage - meaning that it would only bring about annulment if one was expecting sex within the marriage.


The problem with letting the states define marriage as they wish is the risk that, say, a gay couple would get married in one state that recognizes gay marriage or move to -- or even travel through -- a state that does not.

But you have no problem when this happens with heterosexual couples. Plenty of couples travel to Nevada to get married and their marriages are recognized in any state to or through which they travel afterward.


(Will marriages change from valid to invalid as a couple travels cross-country? What if a spouse requires medical care along the way?)

I thought this was the point of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.


Moreover, federalism is not the solution if the issue is -- as y'all insist it is -- a civil rights issue.

It is not a civil rights issue at the federal level because, as far as I know, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on gender. However, many states have such laws, so it does become a civil rights issue at that level.

 

The main reason why a lot of people are against Same Sex Marriage is their belief in God.


That is the one reason the law should allow gay marriages. Everyone in the USA are protected by the Bill of Rights. Religise freedon is one of those rights. If one believes that it is okay in God's eyes to marry someone of the same sex, who are we to stop them. If they are wrong, God will judge them. It's not our place. If they do not believe in God than, it's up to them.

It's not a moral issue for governments. It's a money issue. People get a tax brake when they are married. A state that has some sex marriages stands to loss a lot of money.

Money makes the world go around.

 

People get a tax brake when they are married.

Really? What kind of tax break do they get pray tell? Everyone I know that's married always talks about having to pay higher taxes. The only tax cut I know of is the per child tax credit. But that only applies if you have, yes, you guessed it, children

You probably get a higher tax break from owning a home then from having a child since the child credit is what, $500 per child? I believe the mortgage credit is a lot more than that.

 

You don't get a tax break, except perhaps by claiming your spouse as a dependent.

But you get lower insurance premiums, for one. There certainly is a financial benefit (not to mention the legal perks) to marriage.

 

You actually get a decent sized tax break if you are single-income household, filing jointly. My marriage status saved me over 1500.00 alone in this last year (I just did my taxes this weekend).

And LordJedi...
The only tax cut I know of is the per child tax credit. But that only applies if you have, yes, you guessed it, children

Remember that this tax credit applies to adopted children as well.

 

My husband is a Teamster and has very good benefits. My benefits suck.

I'm definitely glad for the marriage benefit.

 

Remember that this tax credit applies to adopted children as well.

Did someone say it didn't? I was simply saying that you have to have children to get the tax credit. You'd think by some of the statements in here that most married couples wouldn't be getting the tax credit since they either don't want children or can't have them.

 

womberty, marriages can be annulled if they have not consummated. In other words, legally, sex has quite a bit to do with marriage.

Lack of consummation is not grounds for annullment, unless one spouse concealed an intent never to have children. if both agree, then it is not ground. Lack of consummation simply makes an annullment possible. As was pointed out, a third party can't simply void the marriage for lack of sex or children.

 

As to the benefits such as taxes and financial are broken into 2 areas, private and public sectors. For the public sector I would like to know exactly what benefits there are exactly. I have been married for 4 years now. I certainly haven?t seen the benefits. I mean as a married couple we get stiffed with higher taxes due to the wonderful marriage tax penalty. So it?s not like you can say we have an advantage within the public sector concerning taxes and the amount we have to pay versus a gay couple. We by far pay more so there can be no benefit in this area. The only true benefit I could see is all this hype over the social security benefits. That in and of itself is not the most solid thing to state as a benefit, let us face facts, social security is not in the best of situations at this point in time. However if the gay marriage activists want the benefit then it can be given to them through civil unions. This brings us back to the point, civil unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.

Now as far as private sector benefits are concerned, the benefits if any, are there because the private sector has seen that there is a need for them. Through that need there is a way for the private sector to make money from it. If the need is there then the private sector will find a way for the benefits to be given because they know in the long run they will make something from the investment of giving the benefits. So this holds true just as the statement above does as well. Once again civil unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.

 

I still don't see how allowing more people to marry the partners they love is going to weaken the institution of marriage.

 

This Just In:

The President is holding a press conference today at 0945 a.m. CST officially supporting the FMA.

Looks like we're going to have a Constitutional Convention here soon, folks.

I'm placing my bet that the FMA passes after significant heated debate.

 

Looks like we're going to have a Constitutional Convention here soon, folks.

Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves here?

Just because the president may give his support does not mean that it has any better chance of getting started.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

You think so huh?

The Amendment is already on the floor (brought up by the advocates of said Amendment) and the FMA has been drafted. All there needs to be is a calling of a convention, and the process begins.

I'm telling you folks, this is going to be a HUGE election-year issue.

 

Anyone have a list of which 38 states have DOMA going? I'm trying to find one, but I'm having trouble.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

Ya beat me to the punch, DM!

This debate may very well tear this country apart. Many americans are against gay marriage but support civil unions. Bush will likely alienate a lot of voters if he supports the most severe form of the amendment, which would outlaw both. If he doesn't, he could lose his religious base.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Mr. Kerry has voiced his support for a "state's rights" definition of this issue, but it looks like the actions in San Francisco have forced the President's hand.

Oh boy. We're really going to get into a slugfest over this one.

Peace,

V-03

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

I watched the speech, and I do beleive he said they can have other unions so long as its not called Marraige.

And I dont think that stance would completly alienate the Religious Right.