Same sex Marriage

For me it's a deffinite case of live and let live.
Here in the UK we already have Civil Partnerships, but I think that his does not go quite far enough. It's not just about cementing the relationship, it's also about the legal rights. As Bushranger said a surviving partner would not automatically inherit, Civil Partnerships are supposed to solve this issue but, as far as I am aware, this has not been tested in law as of yet. The other issue is the seemingly petty one of being allowed to call your partner 'husband' or 'wife', as I said, this may sound petty but it's a matter of equality and pride to some people.
Having researched and written articles on this subject, it seems to me that the only real argument against SSM is religion but even this is a flimsy one, opinions tend to be for SSM other than the homophobic people who seem to think that Gay people getting marriage will bring about the end of the world.
As far as I am concerned, the question shouldn't have to be asked in the first place. It's a no-brainer, if 2 people love each other then why shouldn't they get married?

 

I agree. And I myself have the liberty to choose not to hear about it. I know, I clicked on here and couldn't help commenting.

Either way:

For those of you who are Christian:

The Bible tells to stay out of politics. So let them be.

And it is an individual choice whether or not we honor those marriages as individuals or whether we conform with society which tells us to accept it or reject it.

Mike

 

It does?? WHERE does it say that??? Wasn't Jesus extremely political????

To the rest of you I ask the question: What is the legal purpose of marriage? Forget religion, what is the reason the GOVERNMENT is involved in marriage? It's not about Love, the government doesn't check to see if you are in Love before marriage.

Why care about the government's involvement at all? A will handles inheritance issues, most non-religious hospitals now allow partner visitation rights with proper documentation (so I can't visit my buddy and pretend to be married) - so what is the purpose of marriage in this context? Heterosexual included?

Anyone can have a ceremony and and a party. What is the legal purpose of state-sponsored marriage?

 

It doesn't say anywhere in the bible to stay out of politics. It is an interpretation I've heard before, that was more than likely invented by despotic nobles, and now attempting to be used to subjugate free thought.

I think the right question to be asked is what was the original purpose of marriage? Which was probably to give legitimacy to families. Security for wives (from other men), inheritance for children, and possession (of wives) for men.

Although the reasons for marriage have changed substantially, the basic foundations still have modern day parallels. Although for the majority of the world, marriage today, looks nothing like it did thousands of years ago.

Homosexual marriage, despite what backers like to cite, has never been traditionally accepted. Alleged instances of these unions were extremely rare. Greece, an ancient reference to early homosexuality is often cited for their homosexual promiscuity. These people fail to understand that homosexuality was encouraged in the army, but never openly. It was encouraged, as it has been in so many armies before & after, because soldiers tend to fight harder because of the bonds created through these intimate acts. It was still taboo in society.

Nero the Roman emperor who is often cited for his homosexual marriages, was a lunatic, but since he was an absolute dictator, he could do what he wanted and no one told him anything about it. He was of course slaughtered by his Praetorian bodyguard because of his crazy tendencies.

There is no need to change the definition of marriage, simply legalize any-sex civil unions. Creating gay-marriage, is just trying to force one viewpoint to be accepted by the entire nation. There is no need to be divisive or create resentment. We have enough of that.

 

First you had written "The Bible tells to stay out of politics.". Now, you seem to have retracted that.

I'm not asking for the definition of marriage, just its legal reason and why it's regulated by state governments.

 

I never wrote that, I think you have me confused with blogmaster.

 

Oops, you're right, I apologize for the confusion.

 

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/241862/government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-business
Perhaps the best write up I have seen on how I think about gay marriage. Its funny, driving in to work this morning, I was listening to Bill Handel rattle off an obnoxious rant, beating the straw man of religion as the only reason to oppose gay marriage. After reading the article, I find myself siding with the religious insofar as I hope the Supreme court doesn't start legislating entitlements as "civil rights".

 

The article and its conclusions are quite stupid. It is just a desperate way to oppose gay marriage while trying not to look like a total intolerant homophobic, stupid or religious fanatic.

 

That's a terrific article. The best part is how while uber-liberal California insists that the will of the people must be obeyed, when the people's will voted to abolish same-sex marriage those same liberals exposed themselves as against Democracy and in favor of an Aristocracy.

But there's one thing that the article forgot to mention: In 2012, Americans spent $13 Billion on divorce lawyers. And the Democratic party consists mostly of lawyers.

 

Why does opposing gay marriage make you stupid, homophopic, or a religious fanatic?

It is certainly not about equality.
A gay man can just as easily marry a heterosexual woman as a straight man.
A straight man cannot marry a homosexual man or a straight man.
Just as a homosexual man cannot marry another man.

What gay marriage supporters want is government sanctioned endorsement of homosexual relationships and that would come as the legalization of gay marriage. However, it is not the government's role to endorse it. The government's role should be to stay out of the bedroom, which is why civil unions for any type of couple are the only just government sanction. It does not force the ideals of one group over another.

 

You just don´t understand democracy. Democracy is not a simple rule of majority and in a democracy the rights of minorities have to be protected. For example if one day, the red necks become a majority and decide to vote to kill all the blacks, this cannot be done because the majority has voted to do so.

I think your post is the best proof of my statement that people who oppose gay marriage are stupid, homophobic or religious fanatics. You have hit 2 out of 3 which is quite good. If you don´t know why, read your post again.

 

I never really thought about marriage as a way for the government to protect children, rather than a nice perk for couples. It does put it into prospective. But if the article concludes that marriage laws themselves have devalued marriage, how is that an argument against gay marriage? If the damage is already done (obviously is with a 50% divorce rate) how will allowing gay marriage effect how couples care for children? Since homosexual couples cannot produce children it seems odd that it would effect heterosexual couples. If they adopted or had a baby in other ways, they are still going to be bound by the same marriage laws as heterosexuals.

There still doesn't exist a legal reason to ban gay marriage. If you feel the way you do for religious reasons, that is fine, but gay marriage does not effect you. Marriage licenses from the government are not bound by any religious standards or rules. You may say that marriage came from religion, but the government legally cannot refuse the right to marry to a homosexual couple simply because the bible condemns it. It would be a clear violation of the church and state laws to try and enforce rules written in the bible.

If, as this article explains, marriage is delivered by the government to create healthy and stable households for children, being homosexual or heterosexual should not be a factor. If the value of a marriage is the environment of a family that is created, then allowing homosexual marriage does not devalue or insult heterosexual marriage in any way. If you believe so, then your problem is not with gay marriage, but with gay people.

 

Off Topic:
I wish you would tell that to all the anchors over at CNN and MSNBC. It seems the left only understands democracy when it is convenient for them. I recently watched a rant by Piers Morgan talking about how the President and Congress needed to pass gun laws to protect the majority of americans who do not own guns. He said that the majority is against guns, so the government should act on that. If what you say is true, the rights of gun advocates (minority) need to be protected.

 

I think you should re-read my statement and attempt to confront me with debate instead of playground ignorance. This answer is as ignorant as saying that the rights of minorities have to be protected for a country to be a democracy.

-Protection of minority rights would be a constitutional right, a symptom of democracy, not a component of it. A democracy is rule by the people, another words a majority. You can have protection of minority rights without a democracy, but you cannot have a democracy without substantive elections through which the will of the people is voiced. The majority of people want protection of minority rights, hence, in a democracy where the majority rules, minority rights are incorporated into law with mechanisms that make them hard to trample on which makes them a symptom of democracy.

Maybe you should have studied more in your High School Civics class instead of talking trash on the playground.

 

I thought the article covered this nicely. As a tax perk, the government can discriminate however they like, just like the child tax credit. The government gives you a refundable tax credit of a thousand dollars per child, that couples without children simply do not get. Discrimination? The government gives a full deduction for mortgage interest and tax payments on real property, while renters get very little to nothing. Discrimination? Our marriage laws were designed to protect the next generation, not as a tax perk for teaming up.

I'm with you from the standpoint that, as an institutionalized tax incentive, it is already largely broken. The answer to that is to reform the tax code removing existing heterosexual couples without children, not add new beneficiaries who cannot produce children naturally and only rarely adopt.

[Edit]By the way, I could definitely get behind legislation that did exactly that, while making gay marriage the law of the land. I could give a crap about the word "marriage". If two people are masochistic enough to entangle themselves in a lifelong legally binding relationship without involving children, I say let them have at it. Just don't ask me to subsidize them in any way.

It is already banned in California. As a matter of tax policy, it is the right of the citizens to do so.

On this topic too, the article had some interesting points. Churches are in fact agents of the state in conducting marriage ceremonies. If gay marriage is considered to be a civil right, does that mean churches will be forced to conduct those ceremonies in contradiction with their faith or face discrimination suits?

Except, none of our marriage law is predicated around children right now. Gay couples, and more specifically, gay male couples tend to be high income earning because both partners work(I.e. one is not staying at home raising children). Just like a heterosexual couple that decides to go the career route, they really don't need any extra tax breaks.

 

The article says:

Plainly that's not the case as millions of people who had kids outside marriage and then separated are still stuck with child support payments. Or is collecting child support from ex-defactos now illegal?

 

That is what we refer to as palimony over here. That is a bit different than a married couple where the woman cheats, has the child, and the husband is stuck feeding it. I believe a single woman has the right to sue the real father of her child if she can prove he is the father, but I'm not sure exactly how that works out in the case of an affair. Sadly, I suspect the article is right. Horrifying, isn't it?

 

Not at all. I think it's written by a catholic, biased to the author's outlook, simply looking for excuses not to implement equal rights and failing at it's conclusions.

An earlier comment about forcing priests to perform gay-marriage is crazy too. Churches can decide whom they marry right now as it stands. None will be forced to marry someone, just as they can deny marrying any couple now, gay or straight. If a priest doesn't think your good enough to marry then you don't get married in that church. I believe it's the church who has lost it's way here.

I don't think people are asking for churches to marry them, they're asking for government to recognise the piece of paper in the same way they recognise a church-sanctioned marriage certificate. That's all.

FTR. John Howard (former Aust PM) changed the definition of marriage here in 2004/5 to state marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Before that there was NO definition.

 

If gay marriage is ruled legal, then I would suspect there will be lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry homosexual couples, there already has been (http://www.proudparenting.com/node/690).