|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 20:59:30 GMT -5
You have hit upon the essential point. There is no right to marriage, for gays or straights. There is the legal benefit of legal marriage for straight people for the benefit of society. This requires a license, which can be denied by the states (you can't marry your cousin, you used to have to get a blood test in most states, and could be refused for genetic abnormalities that raised the chances of birth defects, etc.). The requirement of the license vary state to state, most of them require that there be only two participants, one of each sex. Once again, this is NOT a right. It is a privilege extended by the state. Which is why gay couples have the same rights as straight couples, none when it comes to marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 22, 2008 0:46:40 GMT -5
Keyodie,
First, gay people do have the same rights as everyone else. Because the state is not allowed to dictate to churches, a gay couple can marry if they find a church that is willing. The fuss is the legal recognition. This is automatic in straight couples. you have to draw up civil union papers or something similar with gay couples. That may be a pain, maybe even unfair, but to change the legal recognition will lay the ground work for the power of the state to dictate church doctrine, a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
If you want the truth, though sarcastic, think of it this way. A gay man and a straight man do have the same marriage rights. Either may marry any woman he wants to so long as she is single, not a blood relative, and is a consenting adult. Exactly the same right. Equal.
All sarcasm aside, what justification is there to set the ground work for the violation of the first amendment. You may not like it, but unless the legal system can be made to both recognize the first amendment rights of the church and recognize gay marriage then it is a bad idea. The legal language in prop 8 dose not protect the church.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 22, 2008 1:14:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation both of you. There was one part that wasn't clear to me though... Could you explain that? Also, I found this article about civil unions, and here is the link: lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htmI'll put the more important quotes here:
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 29, 2008 17:18:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation both of you. There was one part that wasn't clear to me though... You're welcome, as always. For a man and woman to get married, they have to fulfill the requirements for a marriage license, and obtain one prior to the wedding ceremony. After the ceremony, the minister or Justice of the Peace who performed the ceremony signs the license, and you have two other people witness it, and the bride and groom sign it, and you have a legally binding marriage contract. It is a pre-set contract. If you were a gay couple who wanted to arrange your affairs in the same manner as a straight couple, you would need to fill out a will, a power of attorney, etc., and some form of agreement with regard to property and custody as a contract between the two parties to provide the same rights. It's not a legal status, but it is a legally binding contract that would provide the same protections and most of the same personal privileges that legal marriage does. The only thing that could not be dealt with this way is you would not derive the tax benefits, government financial benefits, and you might or might not have the same health insurance access (many states and individual insurance companies already provide access to either household insurance that covers everyone in the house, or life partner coverage). As I stated in an earlier post, the governments financial benefits of marriage, taxes or otherwise, are designed to promote nuclear families because they have been determined by history to be of most benefit to society, and therefore society has chosen to offer incentives for those willing to give up their single status, and often some income in order to produce and raise the next generation. That is not a right. As to the ** part, if you start to make laws, awarding rights to individuals that do not exist in the constitution, especially ones that could be interpreted to limit the rights of organizations specifically protected at this time, you open those organizations to lawsuits until they can prove the laws unconstitutional. We have already seen this happen. In Massachusetts, they made a law stating that organizations that provided adoption services were required to place children with gay couples or they could be sued for discrimination. This law eventually forced one of the largest adoption agencies to close its operations in MA, because they were Catholically run, and it violated their rules of operation to place children with gay couples, on religious grounds. Boston lost a great service, and now there is one fewer organizations to help parents and children in the adoption process. In Canada, there are churches being sued because they preach against homosexuality, and the preachers can be brought up on criminal charges because it is considered "hate speech", even though it does not advocate violence. Those are just two examples I remember reading about over the last few years, but you get the gist. The state cannot stop you from entering into a legal contract with another legal adult. Whether it is recognized by the state or not. You are entitled to assign your will, you insurance benefits, your doctors information, your medical visitation, and pretty much any other personal business to whomever you chose. You don't need a marriage license or a civil union to do so. This is one of the essential objections to marriage between anything other than one man and one woman being legally recognized. Marriage is a contract that is required to be recognized by all 50 states. The majority of the states do not believe the benefits of marriage should extend to gay couples, nor any couples besides one man and one woman. For it to be legalized in one state will unleash a crap storm. That is why most of those who do not want gay marriage forced upon their communities a proponents of a federal level marriage amendment that clearly defines what constitutes marriage. That makes more sense than you might think. Because marriage is a legally recognized contract in all 50 states, it can be legally dissolved in any state, under certain conditions. Because most states do not have a legal status for Civil Unions, there is no legal framework, laws, or jurisdiction. However, I'd like to point out that different states have different divorce laws too. In VA you must be legally separated for 6 months without children, or 1 year with children before you can file for divorce. In GA, you must be a resident for at least 6 months before you can file for divorce. In Nevada, I'm pretty sure there is no residency or waiting requirements at all. Each state is different regardless of what type of union you want to get into or dissolve. There's nothing special, or even discriminatory about it. [/quote] Absolutely not. As I said, that isn't a right. It is a benefit provided to a married man and woman to promote a benefit to society as a whole. There is no more reason for gay couples to get those tax breaks than there is for a couple who has chosen to live together without marriage, or for two roomates, or two sisters that live together. It is a specific incentive, for a specific purpose. Hope that explains a little more.
|
|