I have to ask myself over and over again do I care if two men, or two women get married?
I keep coming up with a big no. Now admittedly any my family values that I might um... conserve are a bit left than some, or most, people.
So excluding taxes what precise interest does the federal government have with marriages? I was under the impression that marriages licenses are issued by the state, not federal, government.
If this is going to be the "BIG" issue of this campaign then I am thinking maybe this doesn't bode well. Not well at all. Sorry but allowing gay marriage will not rip this country apart.
And I don't wanna see none of the those hyperbolic posts saying, "Well why not allow a person to murder then? Or to commit bestiality or incest?" It's apples and ratchets buddy. You cannot say that A causes Z(Well you can say it, but it's stupid.), it's not logical. Not rational. And well unless you have a solid evidenciary base, it's just fear mongering.
Side note: The United States of America is not a "true" democracy, it's a democratic republic. The logicstics of a true democracy is a little frightening, and terribly inefficient. What we have now isn't the best, isn't the worst, but it can always be improved cause we've got a living document that sets down the guidelines.
Iago, this is not a rational topic, but an emotional one. In many minds being homosexual equates with bestiality, pedophilia, and low morals. We refuse to separate the issues because we are repulsed, even when we say we don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
The argument is a straw man. It will not destroy civilization as we know it. Heterosexuals are doing a fine job of that.
Ultimately, we must work to put emotion aside and look at the empirical evidence. This will take a while.
All that being said, IMO give gays a civil union recognized across the nation but not marriage. Marriage is a religous institution whether you are Hindu or Christian. The government should stay out of it.
Originally posted by DrDirtAll that being said, IMO give gays a civil union recognized across the nation but not marriage. Marriage is a religous institution whether you are Hindu or Christian. The government should stay out of it.
As long as the government stays out of straight marriages and gives them equivalent civil unions, too, I'm on board with that.
If a church wants to marry two gays, that's fine by me. If they don't, that's fine by me. By the same token, if the Hoboken Stamp Collecting Club wants to declare a gay couple their Men of the Year and award them total sovereignty over the state of New Jersey, that's _also_ fine by me... because under the law, the concerns of the churches and the concerns of the Hoboken Stamp Collecting Club should be equivalent (i.e. irrelevant).
"It looks like it was a larger dog with tighter skin, and then someone grabbed him by the anus and pulled him as hard as they could." -- David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap, explaining the Shar-Pei
Barry Nevins and his partner have been together as a couple for more than four years, and even exchanged rings and vows on a Caribbean cruise trip.
But today, angered by President Bush's call this week for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, they hope to take their relationship one step further in New Paltz, N.Y., where the mayor, Jason West, has said he will perform marriages for up to a dozen same-sex couples today.
After making headlines in San Francisco and Massachusetts, the national debate over gay marriage migrated today to a smaller stage, the Hudson Valley community of New Paltz north of New York City, after Mr. West said that several gay couples would be married.
An official in the town clerk's office said that by law marriage licenses could not be given out to same-sex couples, and therefore the legal basis for the marriages performed today was in question.
But Mr. West is expected to perform ceremonies for gay couples that solemnize a marriage, the first such ceremonies in New York State, where same-sex couples have historically been refused marriage licenses.
Mr. Nevins, a 42-year-old hospital administrator, said he had no idea whether his marriage to his partner, whom he declined to name, would be legally recognized any more than their Caribbean "marriage" three years ago.
But like many of the gay couples who are trying to get marriage licenses, that is not the whole point.
"It is a statement to say that no one has the right to tell me who I can marry," Mr. Nevins said in a telephone interview from the town clerk's office in New Paltz, where he was unable to get a license but instead was given directions to the mayor's office.
Mr. West, who is 26 and was elected last year on the Green Party ticket, has said that marriages for gay couples were a matter of equal rights.
He told CNN today that for a marriage to be legal in New York state it only has to be "properly solemnized by someone with authority to do so."
"As mayor I am fully able to do that and at noon today I start solemnizing marriages regardless of gender," Mr. West said.
On Tuesday, President Bush, citing San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples despite state laws that appear to be to the contrary, said that the union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution. He said he supported an amendment that would counteract "activist judges" who have issued rulings in favor of gay marriage.
More than 3,300 same-sex couples have gotten married in San Francisco since Feb. 12, and California courts are now considering legal challenges both to the marriages and the laws that forbid them.
Rosie O'Donnell, the comedian who has become a prominent advocate for gay rights since she announced she was a lesbian in 2002, married her partner of six years in San Francisco on Thursday, an act that she said was "inspired" by President Bush's remarks.
Today, television trucks converged on New Paltz, located not far from the Hudson river and the Shawangunk Mountains, a ridge of rugged and rocky cliffs popular with rock climbers.
"This would have to be the largest coverage of New Paltz since I joined the department 28 years ago," said the township's police chief, Raymond K. Zappone.
Mr. Nevins said he and his partner drove two hours to reach the mayor's office.
"Gay and lesbian people have been persecuted and oppressed," he said. "If Rosie O'Donnell can go and get married, I think we can too."
Thomas Crampton contributed reporting from New Paltz to this article
The gist of what Mayor West said on CNN was that while the New York state health board says it is illegal to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman, the NY State constitution says that "for a marriage to be legal in New York state it only has to be 'properly solemnized by someone with authority to do so'".
So, no marriage licenses involved, yet gay couples are still getting married. Nifty, eh?
I guess, emotionalism issue for gays aside, why would any sane person would want the government to recognize their marriage? It kills my wife and I in state and federal taxes, it kills me in health insurance, and God forbid we wouod ever get divorced it would nail me yet again.
As I ststed earlier, are there any polls with numbers on how many gays are for this. Or is this activist posturing and knee jerk emotionalism. I understand the emotional need but question the wisdom of the stand.
And as an aside, my sife & I were really married twice. Got the government license in Ohio and then later had the church service. The church wouldn't marry us without the license but the state already considered us married.
Yes, it sucks to get married tax wise. But what about getting joint health coverage? Or Social Security? If your wife makes a lot more money than you do, when you finally retire you could get 3/4's of her social security check instead of your own. But only if you're married. There are lots of ways that being married can help stabilize a family rather than just being two people living in the same house.
Originally posted by DrDirtIt kills my wife and I in state and federal taxes...
Really? Mrs. JJD and I filed separately until this year since we came out ahead, but with the baby we ended up KILLING on our taxes.
EDIT: Upon reflection I should add that both of us have our paychecks done as single with ZERO deductions. That makes a huge difference in the money we get back.
(edited by JayJayDean on 27.2.04 1216)
Your tax refund and the amount of tax you pay are two separate issues. You could have gotten even more money back if you had filed your I-9 as single with zero deductions and asked your employer to deduct an additional $5 (or $50 or $100 or whatever) per pay period for taxes. You need to look at the amount of tax paid when filing jointly versus the amount of tax paid while filing separately.
This is about the elections, and playing up to one's constituency. Frankly people can whine and piss and moan to their hearts content about the matter, but Bush's whole line about "activist" judges is a bit irritating. It makes him sound a bit petulant because the Supreme court doesn't always agree with him.
I mean obviously the Court can make some bad decisions, but I am kinda noticing the similarities between this and the Prohibition movement, and subsequent amendment.
It has been established that a person's rights end when they would infringe or harm another person (hence why there are harassment laws, libel, slander, and the like).
Now this begs the question, is marriage a right or a privilege? I don't know really. But it is abused many, many times by "normal" people, who end up divorcing, or worse, and no one has thought to say, "Hey you get like three shots at marriage, and then that's it." Or having breathalizers in Las Vegas wedding chapels to prevent drunken marriages that'll get anulled or such the next day or in a few months.
Of course I am looking at this logically, so maybe I'll miss the point entirely. I am a child of the '80's most of my family is divorced, or has been divorced, and I try to not think on how thoroughly screwed up the part of my family that has never divorced.
I agree, I doubt the bill will make it to the state for ratification. It'd have to pass 2/3rds in Senate and House, then be approved by 3/4 of the states, 38 total. Until yesterday, exactly 38 states banned gay marriage, and I think Idaho is taking their ban into consideration. If it does, the Bill will never make it.
But lets say it does. Amendment 38 hits the books, and the states then decide on civil unions. The general gay population will more than likely migrate to those states, and run for (and probably win) political seats. Those states will band together and pass a bill to have the amendment overturned. That's how I see it going, anyway.
I hope it doesn't get passed in the first place, though. Ok, so the bill wants to ban gay marriage, but give them 'civil union' instead. If Civil union doesn't offer all the benefits of marriage, it's a message that gays aren't equal (or 'worthy') of marriage, and that will start another equal rights movement, like the blacks and the women have before. But if it offers the same benefits, then what's the point?
Marriage is not about marrying someone of the opposite gender, or having children (I'm proof of that), it's about promising to stay faithful to the person that you love above everybody else. It's about happiness, which the Constitution states- 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
Sure, in ancient times- shoot, even up to 50 years ago, a woman got married to a man so he could provide for her and her children. Love would usually come later, when the two people would 'grow' on each other. An unwed woman was shameful, and an unwed mother was unspeakable. Today women are independent, and don't need to marry to be provided for. They can get a job, buy a home, and have children without a husband (a boyfriend, maybe). So, what's left to get married for? All the past reasons are null, so what's left is love. You marry a person because you love them with all your heart, and don't believe you could love anyone else on Earth as much. Why should it matter if the two people are the same gender? People marry because of who the other person is as a person, not what gender they are.
And as a last note, if marriage really is a religious act, the government can't do a thing about it because of the separation of church and state. Therefore, control of the decision would move from Washington DC, to separate church heads, and Bush couldn't say a word.
Originally posted by AWArulzThe votes said Bush won.
Actually, Bush only won the electoral votes (technically. I doubt we'll ever know for absolute certain that he got Florida. Lets say he did, though they more or less 'gave' him Florida, the margin of the popular vote was that close.) The popular vote was something like a quarter to a half million in Gore's favor. I believe that's the first time an elected president lost the popular vote (except maybe Lincoln, he was very close, being since the South hated him.)
But, we can't really do away with electoral college, otherwise smaller states like Washington would be overruled severely by the East, and we wouldn't have the hydroelectric dams, chemicals of any kind for the farms, or the highest minimum wage in the country at $7.16 an hour.
Originally posted by DrDirtIt kills my wife and I in state and federal taxes...
I know what you mean. My dad is going to college for his third degree (in nursing), so he only works one night a week. We make about $6,500 a year, less than half the poverty line, and 20% of that money goes to taxes. Great tax cut, Mr. Bush. We can sure feel it way down here on the income scale...
HHH: You two had better stop your ambiguiously gay excersions before I kick you happy asses out of Evolution, damn it! (H yelling at Ric & Randy from 'God Knows', http://www.fanfiction.net/. ~~*~~*~~ Triple H is like fine wine, his grace and talents accented gracefully by his advancing years. Ah, yes, just like fine wine; that or those triple chedder nachos I forgot in the back of my fridge for three months. ~~*~~*~~ Be good, Vince. Don't be dumb.