Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
does this mean, people will move to those states (or change their legal domiciles?)?
actually, how big of a hornet's nest will this be, shoved up the collective's christian right-as-pedo community (Not that i care about what those riotious bigots gotta say...)
"Zarella added, 'The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.'"
Do these people even think about their arguments before they make them, or is it just a sort of logorrheic eruption over which they have no conscious control? I mean, unless this idiot is actually suggesting that all marriages should be legally required to produce children...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've met people who actually do believe that. Oddly enough, they also advocate for "small government." How one works with the other is anyone's guess.
-------------------- "Don't fight forces; use them." --R. Buckminster Fuller
posted
Actually I would love for someone to competently explain this marriage is a tradition argument especially in light of America's marriage/divorce rate.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I think that if the government had direct and absolute control over one or two or three things and no control over anything else, that'd qualify as "small government" and might be how those people internally reconcile it. Or not.
Mars: Tradition is a bad word for it. It's a religious and/or social institution. It's not something you have to do to be happy or be in love or stay with someone forever or bear children; likewise, you don't have to be happy or be in love or stay with someone forever or bear children if you don't want to. It's a tradition at least that if you love someone and want to stay with them and have children with them then you should declare your intentions in a ritual or ceremony which has either religious or social significance, often both. But if you don't feel the need to involve your families or (G)god(s) in your private decisions and relationships, well, then don't. But that shouldn't mean you don't get the same benefits as the people who decide they want to. In other words, a personal choice shouldn't dictate how you're treated by your government if that choice doesn't harm anyone else.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Agreed wholeheartedly. The main problem I see is that we need to divorce (see what I did there) religious and secular marriage. Just as the (USA) government doesn't recognize church marriages without having marriage licenses to back them up, churches shouldn't have to recognize secular marriages.
Hell, one church refused to marry my aunt and uncle because my aunt had been married before and because they had lived together before getting engaged. They drove my aunt to tears, in fact. It didn't stop them from getting married. They just found another church.
-------------------- "Don't fight forces; use them." --R. Buckminster Fuller
posted
Having two people marry of the same sex in no way diminishes or harms these bozos that are so worked up over it. More hate and intolerance thinly disguised as righteous religion.
Here in Florida, there is a pending amendment to the state's constution that would ban same sex marriages and "civil unions"- which would harm (gay) people for no damn reason. Polls show it's a 50/50 split- the vote needs a 60% majority to pass.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
My mom's second marriage hit the same stupid brick wall - because they lived together before marriage the church wouldn't do it. So we went somewhere else. But well, it's that church's right to decide who they'll marry and who they won't. So, yeah, I agree that religious and secular marriage should be different. In fact I rather think every recognized religious group should be able to perform legally binding ceremonies and decide for themselves who can get married, and I think anyone should be able to have a purely secular ceremony regardless of their genders. You do however run into problems with polygamy. I mean, I think they should have the same rights as anyone else, but it also isn't fair to ask a company to extend health benefits to 35 wives/husbands or something. Or what if someone wants a group marriage between 2 or more males and 2 or more females? Who gets benefits then?
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
In states where gay marriage is legal, can the couple file joint federal income taxes? Are there any situations that the couple would face/avoid in the three legal states that they wouldn't be able to face/avoid if they were to later move to a state not recognizing their union?
What I'm wondering/trying to get at is at what point does this become legal in all 50 states? Marriage is a bit different than other issues that are different state to state (driving age, drinking age...). Marriage affects a lot of legal and governmental paperwork (inheritance, taxes, etc...) Setting the popular arguments aside what kind of red-tape or logistical nightmares are going to result because certain states recognize gay marriage while others don't?
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
"In states where gay marriage is legal, can the couple file joint federal income taxes?"
I don't think so, because of the "Defense" of Marriage Act, which says that the federal government won't recognize homosexual marriages, regardless of what the states do. It also allows states to ignore them, regardless of what other states do. Obviously, the latter provision is blatantly unconstitutional, and the former arguably so, as well. But, unless and until the Supreme Court rules as such or the Congress repeals the law on its own, that doesn't seem to matter.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Here in Flori-Duh! homosexuals can be foster parents -and share all the responsibilities and expenses of raising a child- but can not adopt a child as they are officially evil immoral space aliens.
Nothing says "discrimination" like not allowing a group legal rights others take for granted.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
