No, denying a person the right to choose is ignorant.
Let's not go here in this thread. Surely you recognize that the abortion issue is more than just a simple right to choose or not. I think you're just being argumentative.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And yet, they are still being put into a separate pile. Why?!
Because they're not the same. .... By your logic, everyone should just be called a person or something is wrong. .
:shock:
If 'they' are not the same(as what/who) , ie a person, a human being, what are 'they'? Why label? I know we do this all the time - the coloured person, the redhead, etc. but labels are not what makes a person.
A person can expect to have the same equal rights as another. Not the "I'm all for equal rights but not really because I don't agree with your lifestyle/colour/label/etc, so I will not allow you the right to use a certain word/ceremony to describe this supposedly equal right". Not 'equal right' then, is it?
If one doesn't agree with the homosexual 'lifestyle' and does not approve of a same sex marriage (with all it's legal implications) as it goes against his/her values/morals, that's fine but let's not try to disguise it under false pretenses.
Because they're not the same. .... By your logic, everyone should just be called a person or something is wrong. .
:shock:
If 'they' are not the same(as what/who) , ie a person, a human being, what are 'they'? Why label? I know we do this all the time - the coloured person, the redhead, etc. but labels are not what makes a person.
A person can expect to have the same equal rights as another. Not the "I'm all for equal rights but not really because I don't agree with your lifestyle/colour/label/etc, so I will not allow you the right to use a certain word/ceremony to describe this supposedly equal right". Not 'equal right' then, is it?
If one doesn't agree with the homosexual 'lifestyle' and does not approve of a same sex marriage (with all it's legal implications) as it goes against his/her values/morals, that's fine but let's not try to disguise it under false pretenses.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about here (and nice selective quoting, by the way). You took my comment totally out of context and ignored the conversation string to which I was replying. The "they" I was referring was gay marriages in general, not people.
Here's a recap:
1. Someone asked why couldn't gay marriages just be called something else. They were thinking this might be a compromise to make them legal.
2. A subsequent comment stated that calling gay marriages something different was akin to black people having separate drinking fountains, etc.
3. I stated that it was nothing like blacks having separate drinking fountains.
4. The comment was made that if that were the case, why were gay marriages put into a separate pile.
5. I stated that it was because they were different and that we label things that are different all the time with not real negative consequences (man, woman, child, blonde, etc.)
6. Then your comment came out of left field.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
people are people. and if people are allowed to get married then ALL people should be allowed to get married regardless of the sexuality. its quite simple when you think about it. but think too much....
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
people are people. and if people are allowed to get married then ALL people should be allowed to get married regardless of the sexuality. its quite simple when you think about it. but think too much....
Yes, I agree. If two people are in love and want to get married, nobody should have any right to tell them they can't get married, including having it legally recognized. If homosexuals are banned from marriage, why not ban interracial marriages? To me it's pretty analagous.
ya know what, you're all correct. i apologize for having an opinion on a certain matter. I should have just agreed with the OP. For a second there i thought i had the right to free speech. Again, Forgive me for having an opinion.
New to the Train I see? Settle in, grab a beer (fridge is on the left), and be prepared to be expected to justify your comments.
ya know what, you're all correct. i apologize for having an opinion on a certain matter. I should have just agreed with the OP. For a second there i thought i had the right to free speech. Again, Forgive me for having an opinion.
New to the Train I see? Settle in, grab a beer (fridge is on the left), and be prepared to be expected to justify your comments.
Maybe we should all go by the Lounge Car and have a drink!
ya know what, you're all correct. i apologize for having an opinion on a certain matter. I should have just agreed with the OP. For a second there i thought i had the right to free speech. Again, Forgive me for having an opinion.
New to the Train I see? Settle in, grab a beer (fridge is on the left), and be prepared to be expected to justify your comments.
Maybe we should all go by the Lounge Car and have a drink!
make mine a double.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but first maybe we should consult who owns the word "lounge" and what were the traditional uses of the word "lounge" so as to not soil it's meaning to some people ...
how can you have the same thing under different names?
Why not? if it has all the same legal boundaries and with equal rights?
It is not marriage because it is not between a man and a woman.
It is a gay civil union.
Once gay unions acquire the legal civil status nationwide with equality
the only thing missing would be the religious reference to marriage
and the government is not involved there,
that is within the churches to recognize the unions.
And I would think many churches would do just that.
This would be a good move now for the current administration ...
to pass an amendment recognizing civil gay unions with equal rights nationwide.
Not touching the current marriage issue but granting equality to gay unions.
people are people. and if people are allowed to get married then ALL people should be allowed to get married regardless of the sexuality. its quite simple when you think about it. but think too much....
I still don't think it's a right, but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
people are people. and if people are allowed to get married then ALL people should be allowed to get married regardless of the sexuality. its quite simple when you think about it. but think too much....
I still don't think it's a right, but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
yeah you know what? i dont think marriage is a right either BUT i feel every single person should be allowed by law to get married and have it recognised as such.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.
Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?
Why does it matter what its called? The problem lies with people thinking they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. Why shouldnt a gay couple be allowed share health benefits?
Marriage is a man made institution. God or the bible didn't create it. I would live to hear an argument opposing gay marriage that doesn't include god created Adam and eve not Adam and Steve. And I would like to hear how it affects you personally without hearing "I don't want me or my kids seeing two men kiss".
marriage...
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
A proponent of the law yesterday stated perhaps the gay community could leave marriage as is
and establish a new amendment, giving a new name for the union of same sex couples
with the same legal rights.
Was curious about this. Dictionary.com:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. a similar instituion involving partners of the same gender; gay marriage
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Why does it matter what its called? The problem lies with people thinking they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. Why shouldnt a gay couple be allowed share health benefits?
Marriage is a man made institution. God or the bible didn't create it. I would live to hear an argument opposing gay marriage that doesn't include god created Adam and eve not Adam and Steve. And I would like to hear how it affects you personally without hearing "I don't want me or my kids seeing two men kiss".
At least people that say those things are honest about why they don't like a group of people. It's the people with 5 marriages (Rush) yelling about the preservation of marriage values that piss me off.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.
Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?
I'm actually saying that marriage is a choice.
Although they're typically closely linked, marriage does not exactly equal sex or sexual preference either.
What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.
Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?
I'm actually saying that marriage is a choice.
Although they're typically closely linked, marriage does not exactly equal sex or sexual preference either.
What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).
What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).
I guess yes, everyone has the equal opportunity to choose (if deciding you would like to marry your partner is choosing), but your 'choice' may not be possible because the law doesn't allow you to marry if you are not the 'right type' of partners. So I may choose to marry my same sex partner but when I go for all the legal stuff, I find that I can't enter into a MARRIAGE (ie marry) but I can possibly enter into a civil partnership which does not entail the same rights as a marriage. Or I can't do either of those and have to 'live in sin'!
So, whilst there seems to be a choice at the outset, pursuing this choice may become limited or non-existent, depending on your sex and where you live.
Unfortunately, the ones that I choose to fall in love with don't necessary fall in love or want to marry me.
sorry to hear that man. Better luck soon! We'll just agree to disagree then. I think you can control some factors leading to love, but I dont think you cant ultimately control who you fall in love with. (Mila Kunis excluded of course)
How about this... Strip the marriage rights from everyone. Married couples... everyone. This way, no one is missing out on anything and Marriage can remain the Sanctity that it is... In The Eyes Of God.
Problem: Solved. Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf. Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies. Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections
•Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
•Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not even sure what you're talking about here (and nice selective quoting, by the way). You took my comment totally out of context and ignored the conversation string to which I was replying. The "they" I was referring was gay marriages in general, not people.
Here's a recap:
1. Someone asked why couldn't gay marriages just be called something else. They were thinking this might be a compromise to make them legal.
2. A subsequent comment stated that calling gay marriages something different was akin to black people having separate drinking fountains, etc.
3. I stated that it was nothing like blacks having separate drinking fountains.
4. The comment was made that if that were the case, why were gay marriages put into a separate pile.
5. I stated that it was because they were different and that we label things that are different all the time with not real negative consequences (man, woman, child, blonde, etc.)
6. Then your comment came out of left field.
It's interesting to me that your recap of our exchange was so simplified as to ignore why I was bringing up the waterfountains in the first place. Specifically, I believe that having to put a separate label on unions between same sex couples is SIMILAR to segregation in that it is a separation of one group of people (specifically homosexuals) from another group (heterosexuals) rather than allowing everyone to share the same label of "Marriage" is similar to forcing one group of people to use different drinking fountains rather than allowing everyone the privilege of drinking from the same fountain.
Does that clarify how I mean the two situations to be the same? I'm sorry I jumped over a few steps and didn't explain the whole thought in detail. Sometimes I give people credit for understanding a large picture, but maybe it's not always clear?
I'm not even sure what you're talking about here (and nice selective quoting, by the way). You took my comment totally out of context and ignored the conversation string to which I was replying. The "they" I was referring was gay marriages in general, not people.
Here's a recap:
1. Someone asked why couldn't gay marriages just be called something else. They were thinking this might be a compromise to make them legal.
2. A subsequent comment stated that calling gay marriages something different was akin to black people having separate drinking fountains, etc.
3. I stated that it was nothing like blacks having separate drinking fountains.
4. The comment was made that if that were the case, why were gay marriages put into a separate pile.
5. I stated that it was because they were different and that we label things that are different all the time with not real negative consequences (man, woman, child, blonde, etc.)
6. Then your comment came out of left field.
It's interesting to me that your recap of our exchange was so simplified as to ignore why I was bringing up the waterfountains in the first place. Specifically, I believe that having to put a separate label on unions between same sex couples is SIMILAR to segregation in that it is a separation of one group of people (specifically homosexuals) from another group (heterosexuals) rather than allowing everyone to share the same label of "Marriage" is similar to forcing one group of people to use different drinking fountains rather than allowing everyone the privilege of drinking from the same fountain.
Does that clarify how I mean the two situations to be the same? I'm sorry I jumped over a few steps and didn't explain the whole thought in detail. Sometimes I give people credit for understanding a large picture, but maybe it's not always clear?
No it doesn't.
Just to highlight why labels are not the same as actions, you just used the labels of homosexual and heterosexual in your post. Do those labels equal discrimination that is akin to drinking from separate water fountains?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.
Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?
I'm actually saying that marriage is a choice.
Although they're typically closely linked, marriage does not exactly equal sex or sexual preference either.
What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).
Know 1 I have to say I like your style. no nonsense.
the easiest solution is to get the government out of the marriage business all together. But if it is going to give special abilities and privileges to people who choose to enter into the contract of marriage, not allowing people of a certain gender to marry each other simply based on biology is institutional discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law, isn't it?
I don't know of too many laws that make it so that people cannot have privileges granted by the state because of the gender involved.
Separate does not mean equal. I understand the point you are trying to make that everyone has the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. But by that rationale, doesn't it also imply that you are unable to marry someone of the same sex based solely on gender? And isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment?
There are two solutions I see. Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite...or remove all privileges given to it from the gov't all together. In their private clubs they can discriminate all they want and people will be free to be as intolerant as they choose. I will always defend their right to that behavior in private settings...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Know 1 I have to say I like your style. no nonsense.
the easiest solution is to get the government out of the marriage business all together. But if it is going to give special abilities and privileges to people who choose to enter into the contract of marriage, not allowing people of a certain gender to marry each other simply based on biology is institutional discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law, isn't it?
I don't know of too many laws that make it so that people cannot have privileges granted by the state because of the gender involved.
Separate does not mean equal. I understand the point you are trying to make that everyone has the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. But by that rationale, doesn't it also imply that you are unable to marry someone of the same sex based solely on gender? And isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment?
There are two solutions I see. Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite...or remove all privileges given to it from the gov't all together. In their private clubs they can discriminate all they want and people will be free to be as intolerant as they choose. I will always defend their right to that behavior in private settings...
First, let me say that I agree with your two solutions. I think either is the route to go. I think the public and government are wasting too much time and effort on it either way.
I don't think you can cleanly make it a discrimination based upon gender issue, though. I still say anyone of any gender has the current ability/privilege to get married. What makes it tricky is that marriage is a privilege granted to 2 PEOPLE and not individuals acting along.
It's all silly anyway. Outside of the government-related benefits/advantages - of which I don't really think are that significant, but perhaps I'm just ignorant - marriage is essentially a commitment between people that typically begins with some symbolic ritual or ceremony. I think people should be able to freely do that without the government being involved in anyway.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
Let's not go here in this thread. Surely you recognize that the abortion issue is more than just a simple right to choose or not. I think you're just being argumentative.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
:shock:
If 'they' are not the same(as what/who) , ie a person, a human being, what are 'they'? Why label? I know we do this all the time - the coloured person, the redhead, etc. but labels are not what makes a person.
A person can expect to have the same equal rights as another. Not the "I'm all for equal rights but not really because I don't agree with your lifestyle/colour/label/etc, so I will not allow you the right to use a certain word/ceremony to describe this supposedly equal right". Not 'equal right' then, is it?
If one doesn't agree with the homosexual 'lifestyle' and does not approve of a same sex marriage (with all it's legal implications) as it goes against his/her values/morals, that's fine but let's not try to disguise it under false pretenses.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about here (and nice selective quoting, by the way). You took my comment totally out of context and ignored the conversation string to which I was replying. The "they" I was referring was gay marriages in general, not people.
Here's a recap:
1. Someone asked why couldn't gay marriages just be called something else. They were thinking this might be a compromise to make them legal.
2. A subsequent comment stated that calling gay marriages something different was akin to black people having separate drinking fountains, etc.
3. I stated that it was nothing like blacks having separate drinking fountains.
4. The comment was made that if that were the case, why were gay marriages put into a separate pile.
5. I stated that it was because they were different and that we label things that are different all the time with not real negative consequences (man, woman, child, blonde, etc.)
6. Then your comment came out of left field.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
man + woman = marriage
man + man
> same thing but different name?? :? :?
i'm sorry, but it should be be called marriage if it is marriage.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Maybe we should all go by the Lounge Car and have a drink!
make mine a double.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It is not marriage because it is not between a man and a woman.
It is a gay civil union.
Once gay unions acquire the legal civil status nationwide with equality
the only thing missing would be the religious reference to marriage
and the government is not involved there,
that is within the churches to recognize the unions.
And I would think many churches would do just that.
This would be a good move now for the current administration ...
to pass an amendment recognizing civil gay unions with equal rights nationwide.
Not touching the current marriage issue but granting equality to gay unions.
Great big step for change
I still don't think it's a right, but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
yeah you know what? i dont think marriage is a right either BUT i feel every single person should be allowed by law to get married and have it recognised as such.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.
Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?
worked for john travolta.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Marriage is a man made institution. God or the bible didn't create it. I would live to hear an argument opposing gay marriage that doesn't include god created Adam and eve not Adam and Steve. And I would like to hear how it affects you personally without hearing "I don't want me or my kids seeing two men kiss".
Was curious about this. Dictionary.com:
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
At least people that say those things are honest about why they don't like a group of people. It's the people with 5 marriages (Rush) yelling about the preservation of marriage values that piss me off.
I'm actually saying that marriage is a choice.
Although they're typically closely linked, marriage does not exactly equal sex or sexual preference either.
What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Is who you fall in love with a choice?
I guess yes, everyone has the equal opportunity to choose (if deciding you would like to marry your partner is choosing), but your 'choice' may not be possible because the law doesn't allow you to marry if you are not the 'right type' of partners. So I may choose to marry my same sex partner but when I go for all the legal stuff, I find that I can't enter into a MARRIAGE (ie marry) but I can possibly enter into a civil partnership which does not entail the same rights as a marriage. Or I can't do either of those and have to 'live in sin'!
So, whilst there seems to be a choice at the outset, pursuing this choice may become limited or non-existent, depending on your sex and where you live.
I think so.
Unfortunately, the ones that I choose to fall in love with don't necessary fall in love or want to marry me.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Problem: Solved.
Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
•Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
•Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Hail, Hail!!!
It's interesting to me that your recap of our exchange was so simplified as to ignore why I was bringing up the waterfountains in the first place. Specifically, I believe that having to put a separate label on unions between same sex couples is SIMILAR to segregation in that it is a separation of one group of people (specifically homosexuals) from another group (heterosexuals) rather than allowing everyone to share the same label of "Marriage" is similar to forcing one group of people to use different drinking fountains rather than allowing everyone the privilege of drinking from the same fountain.
Does that clarify how I mean the two situations to be the same? I'm sorry I jumped over a few steps and didn't explain the whole thought in detail. Sometimes I give people credit for understanding a large picture, but maybe it's not always clear?
No it doesn't.
Just to highlight why labels are not the same as actions, you just used the labels of homosexual and heterosexual in your post. Do those labels equal discrimination that is akin to drinking from separate water fountains?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Know 1 I have to say I like your style. no nonsense.
the easiest solution is to get the government out of the marriage business all together. But if it is going to give special abilities and privileges to people who choose to enter into the contract of marriage, not allowing people of a certain gender to marry each other simply based on biology is institutional discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law, isn't it?
I don't know of too many laws that make it so that people cannot have privileges granted by the state because of the gender involved.
Separate does not mean equal. I understand the point you are trying to make that everyone has the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. But by that rationale, doesn't it also imply that you are unable to marry someone of the same sex based solely on gender? And isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment?
There are two solutions I see. Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite...or remove all privileges given to it from the gov't all together. In their private clubs they can discriminate all they want and people will be free to be as intolerant as they choose. I will always defend their right to that behavior in private settings...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
First, let me say that I agree with your two solutions. I think either is the route to go. I think the public and government are wasting too much time and effort on it either way.
I don't think you can cleanly make it a discrimination based upon gender issue, though. I still say anyone of any gender has the current ability/privilege to get married. What makes it tricky is that marriage is a privilege granted to 2 PEOPLE and not individuals acting along.
It's all silly anyway. Outside of the government-related benefits/advantages - of which I don't really think are that significant, but perhaps I'm just ignorant - marriage is essentially a commitment between people that typically begins with some symbolic ritual or ceremony. I think people should be able to freely do that without the government being involved in anyway.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Good list. Couple of questions:
1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?
2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?