quote:Originally posted by TheManOfaThousandScreenNames:
...could someone outline for me what the benefits of the piece of paper are? Is it just the financial benefits, and is this a reason to get married?
It is NOT simply "a piece of paper."
It is a cultural symbol.
It is represents an entire set of legal considerations all balled up, or rolled up into one "solemn" moment of commitment symbolized by the wedding.
It is a currently hot topic in our society and culture because of its cultural significance, even though most of the technical and legal aspects of marriage can be invoked separately otherwise (except for income tax considerations, some of which are often characterized as penalties instead of benefits).
The gay man I was talking about earlier in this thread was married at one time and had 2 kids by that marriage. These 2 kids are very well adjusted, and they loved thier father very much and are very successful, the boy is a full professor, and the girl is a businesswoman also successful. They had no problem accepting who their dad was. He was just that their dad who loved tham and was always there for them. He was even good freinds with his ex.
BTW I would rather have a loving dad like him than one of those men that beat their wives and kids every time he drinks or sometimes just for the power it gives them to do so or just because he can.
I saw many little kids get pretty bad beatings with a wooden spoon while in TWI. My freind never hit his kids, he loved them and they they were good kids because he loved them not because they were scared to death of him.
Well, lookee there. It says a privilege is a _right_ "granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor."
Exactly. I originally wrote "right" instead of "privilege" but was concerned that someone might quibble over the two different usages of "right" I was employing. Now we're quibbling over "privilege?" :)-->
quote:So when a couple marries, their married status affords them special (peculiar) benefits, special favor, and an advantage over single people and couples who do not enter into that legal contract. Correct?
Not exactly. Society specially values and honors (traditional) marriage, and grants people who marry special rights (aka privileges), in order to encourage, promote, and protect (traditional) marriage.
quote:The difference, then, is that heterosexual couples have a choice in whether they'll enter into that legal contract or not, but homosexual couples, in most states, do not have that choice.
Homosexuals have the choice of entering into the sort of relationship (traditional marriage of one person of each gender) society has set apart as being particularly worthy of encouragement, promotion, and protection. If they do, they will be entitled to the corresponding privileges, but might not be very happy.
quote:Heterosexual couples can make a lifetime commitment without the "piece of paper" if they so choose, and thus relinquish the special rights marriage would give them. For homosexuals in most of the states, that right _is relinquished for them._ They do not have an equal choice.
Sure they do. They can choose to marry a person of the opposite gender or they can choose not to marry.
quote:Will letting homosexuals marry threaten my heterosexuality? Of course not.
Will letting homosexuals marry raise my taxes? I don't think so. Just as both parties in many heterosexual married couples work and pay taxes, so do both parties in many (maybe most) homosexual couples.
Will letting homosexuals marry raise my health insurance premiums? Given the small percentage of homosexuals in this country, I doubt it.
Will letting homosexuals marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying? No. Will it take anything away from heterosexual, married couples? I don't see how it would.
I pretty much agree with you here, but these things are beside the point. The point is that society values a particular family arrangement above others, and chooses to encourage it.
quote:Long Gone said: "The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences."
In other words, the majority rules? Sorry, I don't buy that. And a freedom _is_ involved. The freedom to choose to marry or not.
Yes, the majority rules. Not by taking away rights or freedoms, but by granting special privileges (additional rights) to those who choose to meet the conditions. And again, homosexuals have exactly the same freedom to choose to meet those conditions (traditional marriage to someone of opposite gender) as do heterosexuals.
quote:What are we afraid of?
Why do you assume that "we" are afraid of anything? I'm not. I have two homosexual brothers. I have had several homosexual friends, associates, and teachers. One of my daughter's favorite teachers when she was in high school is homosexual. With one exception, all of them are wonderful people. Their sexual orientation is not an issue with me at all.
I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage. I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. What I'm opposed to is a few judges taking away the right of society to offer special incentives and protections for particular conditions (traditional marriage in this case) that it values and wants to promote, by redefining other conditions (similar though they may be) to be identical, and by defining corresponding privileges to be inherent rights, with no support of precedent, common law, case law, or the constitution.
If the Massachusetts Supreme Court had allowed civil unions that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages, except in name, there would have been little opposition. I think they inadvertantly dealt a heavy blow to gay rights advocates and to the Constitution. I pretty well agree with Mark. I think that a Constitutional amendment is probably inevitable now. Thirty-eight States have passed DOMA laws. That's the same number needed to ratify an amendment. I think it will be ratified. I don't like it, but I think it will happen.
Defense of Marriage Act. A patently unconstitutional piece of legislation (overwhelmingly) passed by Congress and signed by Clinton (yes, Clinton, not Bush) because of the fear that a state will legalize gay marriage -- they don't want other states to have to accept gay marriages. Why is it unconstitutional? Because of Article 5 of the constitution, which states essentially that one state must accept public records, licenses, and court orders made by another state. (Gay marriage falls under public records).
Long Gone said, "Why do you assume that 'we' are afraid of anything?
That was the "royal we." I'm kidding! I meant "we" as in "we as a society."
Long Gone: "I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage."
I think we're...er, I'm getting somewhere now. I might even agree with you, if that "legal formalizing" permits one partner to include the other partner on his or her health insurance, allows them to share in end-of-life decisions, and other such things that life partners may do.
I'm still not sure a court doesn't have the right to interpret existing law. Isn't that part of what courts do? (Not saying I know--just asking.)
When you say "most of the spousal rights," which ones do you think same-sex partners shouldn't be permitted?
Yes, Linda, courts do have the right to interpret existing law, it is one of their main functions.
Two attorneys on opposing sides go before the judge with a legal issue. They each present their interpretation of how the law is supposed to be applied, they present research which documents what the legislators wrote, why they wrote it, what the various arguments for and against the law were, etc.
They also explain how other courts have interpreted those laws in the past. If the previous cases are from other jurisdictions, the court currently hearing the case has the right to follow the precedent or ignore it.
The judge then decides how the law was meant to be interpreted and/or applied in each given case/situation. They may also decide the law is unconstitutional and throw it out completely (such as was the case in abortion laws). At times, they will throw out one part of a law and keep another, or make a decision which basically states the law is too vague and needs to be rewritten, etc. This is a part of the function of the courts.
In fact, appellate and supreme courts do not try cases. Their functions are to 1) make sure the trial court and attorneys followed proper procedures and 2)make sure the laws are constitutional.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
[This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 20:16.]
quote:I'm still not sure a court doesn't have the right to interpret existing law. Isn't that part of what courts do? (Not saying I know--just asking.)
Yes, courts do that, and they should, according to the governing constitution(s), other relevant laws, and precedent, including definitions that have been accepted for centuries. In this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court defied hundreds of years of legal precedent and, by a one vote margin, redefined the legal meaning of "marriage," potentially not only for Massachusetts, but for the entire country.
quote:When you say "most of the spousal rights," which ones do you think same-sex partners shouldn't be permitted?
Who said anything about spousal rights that "shouldn't be permitted?" Most of them can already be exercised through other means than either marriage or formalized civil unions. The ones that can't are special benefits that society has provided for traditional marriages, in order to encourage and support them. If the people, through their elected representatives or voter initiatives, should choose to extend some or all of those benefits to others, I have no problem with whatever they decide.
Long gone, When you said, "I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage," it appeared you meant that some wouldn't be included. I was wondering what those might be.
Sheesh. I never saw you as such a nitpicker before. Pardon me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.
I do not appreciate the personal attacks of certain posters, especially those, who, like Trefor, apparently feel it necessary to paint me as a gay-basher in order to have a straw-man for their favorite pro-gay sound bites. Since Long Gone and laleo have elaborated much better on the point I was making, I'll leave this thread to them.
For the record, though, it appears that there was some confusion as to exactly who said what between Cynic, excathedra, and I, a few pages back. I did not reply in any way to what excathedra said to Cynic, I replied to what she apparently said to me. Garth, you may want to re-read that exchange in that light.
I wasn't picking nits. Rather, I was trying to be careful that what I said wasn't misconstrued. I did say what you quoted, but in the very next sentence I also said, "I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage [including associated spousal rights] to include homosexual couples." You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I merely tried to clarify it.
At this point, I think that anything more I might say would just be repeating myself, so I'll bow out.
"I'm not trying to be a thorn in anyone's side here with this, but could someone outline for me what the benefits of the piece of paper are? Is it just the financial benefits, and is this a reason to get married?
It doesn't guarantee the relationship will last forever (none do, for whatever reason).
Does it mean the union is blessed by God, and what does that mean?
I believe it is just the financial benefit. When I went to apply, we were told by the clerk of courts that we were married once the license was issued. The actual wedding ceremony was more for the "celebration of the union" FOR family and friends.
The minister did have to sign the certificate and send it back to the courts though. So we may have gotten some wrong information.
Long Gone, perhaps I was being too touchy last night. I'm sorry.
But please don't go. I've asked my question of you two different ways, and you still haven't answered. I'm really interested in what you meant by "most." What shouldn't be included? I'm not asking to badger you. I'm asking because I value your opinion and want to hear the rest of it.
I didn't mean anything special by "most." I merely listed a possibility that would incorporate most spousal rights and one that would include all. I was neither adocating, nor opposing, either. The point was that the people should decide.
I have not answered your question directly because it assumes a position I have not taken and, in my view, approaches the issue(s) from the wrong direction. I don't view this as an issue of not permitting rights to some people. I view it as an issue of offering privileges to some people, based on conditions society wants to encourage.
I don't think it for the financial reasons (apart from pensions, survivor benefits etc), nor for a nice day to celebrate with family and friends - that can be done at the Metropolitan Community Church and others anyway.
But it is to give a relationship official status in civil terms, just as a heterosexual marriage does. If a man and a woman want to get married they are not asked to justify their decision, whether or not they believe it is in God's eyes or not, or whether they intend to have children.
They are only asked if they are not within a prohibited degree of consanguinity, that they do it freely and they do not have any spouses still living from they have not been legally divorced and that they are of the relevant age of consent.
The reasons are best known to the couple and they will all have different reasons from other couples. The state does not wish to know their reasons so it is speculation for others to conclude one reason more than another.
I do not appreciate the personal attacks of certain posters, especially those, who, like Trefor, apparently feel it necessary to paint me as a gay-basher ....
For the record, though, ........
Zix,
hmm, now I AM confused. I can't recall Trefor calling anyone here a gaybasher, let alone you. What are you saying ? and why are you planting that charge against Trefor?
there were indeed lots of names slung around at various posters, but I can't find where trefor was a slingee. Oh well, I s'pose you have a reason to think you were called a gaybasher. Never mind.
~HAPe4me
A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Rocky
It is NOT simply "a piece of paper."
It is a cultural symbol.
It is represents an entire set of legal considerations all balled up, or rolled up into one "solemn" moment of commitment symbolized by the wedding.
It is a currently hot topic in our society and culture because of its cultural significance, even though most of the technical and legal aspects of marriage can be invoked separately otherwise (except for income tax considerations, some of which are often characterized as penalties instead of benefits).
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
The gay man I was talking about earlier in this thread was married at one time and had 2 kids by that marriage. These 2 kids are very well adjusted, and they loved thier father very much and are very successful, the boy is a full professor, and the girl is a businesswoman also successful. They had no problem accepting who their dad was. He was just that their dad who loved tham and was always there for them. He was even good freinds with his ex.
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
BTW I would rather have a loving dad like him than one of those men that beat their wives and kids every time he drinks or sometimes just for the power it gives them to do so or just because he can.
I saw many little kids get pretty bad beatings with a wooden spoon while in TWI. My freind never hit his kids, he loved them and they they were good kids because he loved them not because they were scared to death of him.
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage. I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. What I'm opposed to is a few judges taking away the right of society to offer special incentives and protections for particular conditions (traditional marriage in this case) that it values and wants to promote, by redefining other conditions (similar though they may be) to be identical, and by defining corresponding privileges to be inherent rights, with no support of precedent, common law, case law, or the constitution.
If the Massachusetts Supreme Court had allowed civil unions that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages, except in name, there would have been little opposition. I think they inadvertantly dealt a heavy blow to gay rights advocates and to the Constitution. I pretty well agree with Mark. I think that a Constitutional amendment is probably inevitable now. Thirty-eight States have passed DOMA laws. That's the same number needed to ratify an amendment. I think it will be ratified. I don't like it, but I think it will happen.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
Sorry for being ignorant but what is a DOMA law.
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Defense of Marriage Act. A patently unconstitutional piece of legislation (overwhelmingly) passed by Congress and signed by Clinton (yes, Clinton, not Bush) because of the fear that a state will legalize gay marriage -- they don't want other states to have to accept gay marriages. Why is it unconstitutional? Because of Article 5 of the constitution, which states essentially that one state must accept public records, licenses, and court orders made by another state. (Gay marriage falls under public records).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
Thanks Mark, I was going crazy wondering what it was. lol
er maybe crazier. hee hee
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Long Gone said, "Why do you assume that 'we' are afraid of anything?
That was the "royal we." I'm kidding! I meant "we" as in "we as a society."
Long Gone: "I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage."
I think we're...er, I'm getting somewhere now. I might even agree with you, if that "legal formalizing" permits one partner to include the other partner on his or her health insurance, allows them to share in end-of-life decisions, and other such things that life partners may do.
I'm still not sure a court doesn't have the right to interpret existing law. Isn't that part of what courts do? (Not saying I know--just asking.)
When you say "most of the spousal rights," which ones do you think same-sex partners shouldn't be permitted?
Linda Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yes, Linda, courts do have the right to interpret existing law, it is one of their main functions.
Two attorneys on opposing sides go before the judge with a legal issue. They each present their interpretation of how the law is supposed to be applied, they present research which documents what the legislators wrote, why they wrote it, what the various arguments for and against the law were, etc.
They also explain how other courts have interpreted those laws in the past. If the previous cases are from other jurisdictions, the court currently hearing the case has the right to follow the precedent or ignore it.
The judge then decides how the law was meant to be interpreted and/or applied in each given case/situation. They may also decide the law is unconstitutional and throw it out completely (such as was the case in abortion laws). At times, they will throw out one part of a law and keep another, or make a decision which basically states the law is too vague and needs to be rewritten, etc. This is a part of the function of the courts.
In fact, appellate and supreme courts do not try cases. Their functions are to 1) make sure the trial court and attorneys followed proper procedures and 2)make sure the laws are constitutional.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
[This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 20:16.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Every time I go to post something, some smart chicks* have already posted what I was thinking!
:D--> 
*used here only to be funny...not to insinuate a lesser value as a human being or demean in any way
?????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Thanks, Abi.
Heh heh CW...no offense taken. And you're pretty darn smart your ownself.
Linda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Linda,
Yes, courts do that, and they should, according to the governing constitution(s), other relevant laws, and precedent, including definitions that have been accepted for centuries. In this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court defied hundreds of years of legal precedent and, by a one vote margin, redefined the legal meaning of "marriage," potentially not only for Massachusetts, but for the entire country. Who said anything about spousal rights that "shouldn't be permitted?" Most of them can already be exercised through other means than either marriage or formalized civil unions. The ones that can't are special benefits that society has provided for traditional marriages, in order to encourage and support them. If the people, through their elected representatives or voter initiatives, should choose to extend some or all of those benefits to others, I have no problem with whatever they decide.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Long gone, When you said, "I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage," it appeared you meant that some wouldn't be included. I was wondering what those might be.
Sheesh. I never saw you as such a nitpicker before. Pardon me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Linda Z
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
I've heard of MBLA, but is there such a thing as OMYGLA(Old man Young girl Love Association)? And if there is, does anyone know their address?
I demand my heterosexual rights.
Proud to be an American
www.northpoint.org
www.anncoulter.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I do not appreciate the personal attacks of certain posters, especially those, who, like Trefor, apparently feel it necessary to paint me as a gay-basher in order to have a straw-man for their favorite pro-gay sound bites. Since Long Gone and laleo have elaborated much better on the point I was making, I'll leave this thread to them.
For the record, though, it appears that there was some confusion as to exactly who said what between Cynic, excathedra, and I, a few pages back. I did not reply in any way to what excathedra said to Cynic, I replied to what she apparently said to me. Garth, you may want to re-read that exchange in that light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't know, but it sounds more interesting than mbla.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Linda,
I wasn't picking nits. Rather, I was trying to be careful that what I said wasn't misconstrued. I did say what you quoted, but in the very next sentence I also said, "I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage [including associated spousal rights] to include homosexual couples." You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I merely tried to clarify it.
At this point, I think that anything more I might say would just be repeating myself, so I'll bow out.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
"I'm not trying to be a thorn in anyone's side here with this, but could someone outline for me what the benefits of the piece of paper are? Is it just the financial benefits, and is this a reason to get married?
It doesn't guarantee the relationship will last forever (none do, for whatever reason).
Does it mean the union is blessed by God, and what does that mean?
I believe it is just the financial benefit. When I went to apply, we were told by the clerk of courts that we were married once the license was issued. The actual wedding ceremony was more for the "celebration of the union" FOR family and friends.
The minister did have to sign the certificate and send it back to the courts though. So we may have gotten some wrong information.
outofdafog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Long Gone, perhaps I was being too touchy last night. I'm sorry.
But please don't go. I've asked my question of you two different ways, and you still haven't answered. I'm really interested in what you meant by "most." What shouldn't be included? I'm not asking to badger you. I'm asking because I value your opinion and want to hear the rest of it.
Linda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i want to apologize to cynic and zixar for my personal attack type remarks. i think they're edited out but i'm still sorry.
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Linda,
I didn't mean anything special by "most." I merely listed a possibility that would incorporate most spousal rights and one that would include all. I was neither adocating, nor opposing, either. The point was that the people should decide.
I have not answered your question directly because it assumes a position I have not taken and, in my view, approaches the issue(s) from the wrong direction. I don't view this as an issue of not permitting rights to some people. I view it as an issue of offering privileges to some people, based on conditions society wants to encourage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
outofadog:
I don't think it for the financial reasons (apart from pensions, survivor benefits etc), nor for a nice day to celebrate with family and friends - that can be done at the Metropolitan Community Church and others anyway.
But it is to give a relationship official status in civil terms, just as a heterosexual marriage does. If a man and a woman want to get married they are not asked to justify their decision, whether or not they believe it is in God's eyes or not, or whether they intend to have children.
They are only asked if they are not within a prohibited degree of consanguinity, that they do it freely and they do not have any spouses still living from they have not been legally divorced and that they are of the relevant age of consent.
The reasons are best known to the couple and they will all have different reasons from other couples. The state does not wish to know their reasons so it is speculation for others to conclude one reason more than another.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Zix,
hmm, now I AM confused. I can't recall Trefor calling anyone here a gaybasher, let alone you. What are you saying ? and why are you planting that charge against Trefor?
there were indeed lots of names slung around at various posters, but I can't find where trefor was a slingee. Oh well, I s'pose you have a reason to think you were called a gaybasher. Never mind.
~HAPe4me
A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
HAPe4me:
Yes, I just noticed Zix's post and was wondering that myself! I have tried not to get ad hominem and to attack viewpoints, not people.
I would appreciate Zix quoting where I called him a gay basher...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.