New York's same-sex marriage ban struck down - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 02-04-2005, 12:48 PM

Looks like this is an issue that just isn't going to go away. Is it possible for the country to come to an agreeable resolution of the whole same-sex marriage flap?

Quote:

A Manhattan judge declared Friday that the section of state law that forbids same-sex marriage is unconstitutional -- the first ruling of its kind in New York and one that if upheld on appeal would allow gay couples to wed.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride" in relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law "shall be construed to mean 'spouse,"' and "all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women." Ling-Cohan ruled on the side of five same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. She said the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.

Susan Sommer, Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case for the five couples, called the ruling "historic" and said it "delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers."

"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," Sommer said.

"Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...span-headlines

guy44 · 02-04-2005, 12:53 PM

This is the best news I've heard all day. For weeks, really. Thank you, New York.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

Looks like this is an issue that just isn't going to go away. Is it possible for the country to come to an agreeable resolution of the whole same-sex marriage flap?

No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges. As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.

There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.

tecoyah · 02-04-2005, 12:57 PM

And thus....we have my reasoning for living in NY.
It sure ain't the freakin' weather.

tecoyah · 02-04-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.

You do realize just how these types of statements make you look......don't you?

CShine · 02-04-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges. As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.

There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.

And how does allowing them to marry "force their beliefs on the rest of the population"? Seems to me that our open acknowledgement of their right to be "perverts," as you put it, has led to their beliefs being a regular part of what we see, read, and talk about, even if the marriage question had never come along. Gay beliefs are already widely-discussed in America. How does legalizing same-sex marriage "force their beliefs" on the rest of us when their beliefs are already out there for everyone to see. If two guys get married, how does that force anything on YOU?

02-04-2005, 01:07 PM

I've been saying for a long time that the best way to solve this problem is to make civil-unions cool for any two human beings, and take away tax benefits for ALL couples. Us single people have been screwed long enough!
Just using the term marriage is what started the whole problem. Dont take the word for a sacrament and make it the same word for something else... thats just like poking the religious crazies with a stick.

CShine · 02-04-2005, 01:09 PM

thinktank wrote:

Quote:

and take away tax benefits for ALL couples

Like that's ever going to even have a chance of making it through Congress.

Willravel · 02-04-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

And thus....we have my reasoning for living in NY.
It sure ain't the freakin' weather.

Hahahaha.

As of January 1, 2005, registered domestic partners in California have many of the same rights and obligations as legally married spouses under state law, including community property rights and the right to receive support from one's partner after a separation. Domestic partners will both be considered legal parents of a child born into the partnership, without the necessity of an adoption. I am proud to be a Californian for things like this. Welcome to the club, NYers.

Now how to give you our weather....

host · 02-04-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.

C'mon daswig, you're baiting us.....I hope. On the slim chance that you are
serious, you diminish only your own stature with your intolerant rhetoric, but I'm
sure that you know that! The state has nothing to gain by introducing
restrictions on the ways adults physically express their affection for each other,
and much to gain by not interfering with the intent of any adult couple to
form a legally recognized, civil union.

NCB · 02-04-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

And how does allowing them to marry "force their beliefs on the rest of the population"? Seems to me that our open acknowledgement of their right to be "perverts," as you put it, has led to their beliefs being a regular part of what we see, read, and talk about, even if the marriage question had never come along. Gay beliefs are already widely-discussed in America. How does legalizing same-sex marriage "force their beliefs" on the rest of us when their beliefs are already out there for everyone to see. If two guys get married, how does that force anything on YOU?

I'll take this one.

Once gay marriage is legitimized through the public arena (ie, the govt), everything associated with it will be shoved down our throats. It'll start in the public school system with sex ed. They'll be teaching about gay sex to our kids.

Next, will be the churches. You think it's gonna sit well with the gay intifada that some churches will not permit them to marry in their particular church? And with the legitimization from the govt, the churched won't have too much to stand on.

Then of course will come the change in Title VII, which will now include sexual orientation and thus, even more lawsuits.

I could go on and on, but you catch my drift. Look, I'm not opposed to having safeguards in place for life partners when it comes to hospital visits, estate issues, ect.. Most people aren't. The fact that this would change thousands of years of Western culture bothers me. Most people really do not think through this issue and thus dismiss prematuraly; saying why do people oppose something that won't affect their own lives.

02-04-2005, 01:34 PM

Maybe I just dont understand the associated legislation well enough, but really, how can legal civil unions do harm to anyone? They wouldnt raise taxes at all, right? If anything it wouldnt it just bring in more income for the state through more marriage licenses? Or am i wrong, is there something underlying that I'm missing?

Willravel · 02-04-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I'll take this one.

Once gay marriage is legitimized through the public arena (ie, the govt), everything associated with it will be shoved down our throats. It'll start in the public school system with sex ed. They'll be teaching about gay sex to our kids.

Next, will be the churches. You think it's gonna sit well with the gay intifada that some churches will not permit them to marry in their particular church? And with the legitimization from the govt, the churched won't have too much to stand on.

Then of course will come the change in Title VII, which will now include sexual orientation and thus, even more lawsuits.

I could go on and on, but you catch my drift. Look, I'm not opposed to having safeguards in place for life partners when it comes to hospital visits, estate issues, ect.. Most people aren't. The fact that this would change thousands of years of Western culture bothers me. Most people really do not think through this issue and thus dismiss prematuraly; saying why do people oppose something that won't affect their own lives.

I'll take this one.

Isn't gay society already out there? Just because legislation would allow homosexual unions does not mean that people have not been gay for thousands of years. Hvae you ever watched the Bravo channel? A great deal of the programming on the channel is intended for homosexual men. Is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy shoving anything down your throat? Somehow I doubt it.

I think it would be responsible to teach gay kids about sexual education, just as it is responsible to reach straight kids about it. If responsible people can expose the kids to a safe way to have sex before they hear it from a less responsible cource, it could slow AIDs. I'm sure you dislike AIDs as much as the rest of us. Kids are going to be straight or gay no matter what congress says, this simply allows them equal rights to other sexual prefrence groups. Would it bother you if two gay guys you've never met were able to have community property rights? Somehow I doubt it.

Churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone they please. That isn't an issue. It is still legal for a church to refuse to marry people because they are black or disabled. Whether it's right or not, they are allowed to make that decision on their own.

This will effect your life if you are friends with some gay guys and they invite you to their wedding. I really don't see how this will negatively effect your life.

CShine · 02-04-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Once gay marriage is legitimized through the public arena (ie, the govt), everything associated with it will be shoved down our throats. It'll start in the public school system with sex ed. They'll be teaching about gay sex to our kids.

That is a question for your local school board. They have the power right now to choose their curriculum and authorizing gay marriage will not change that power one iota. A local school board can teach gay sex right now if they want. Changing marriage law does not force anything on local school boards in any way. Each locality would still retain complete authority over what it teaches. Frankly, your comment above amounts to nothing but scare-mongering tactics.

Quote:

Next, will be the churches. You think it's gonna sit well with the gay intifada that some churches will not permit them to marry in their particular church? And with the legitimization from the govt, the churched won't have too much to stand on.

They'll have the 1st Amendment to stand on. No church has EVER been forced to marry anyone. That will not change.

Quote:

Then of course will come the change in Title VII, which will now include sexual orientation and thus, even more lawsuits.

Changing marriage law is does not change Title VII.

tecoyah · 02-04-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Hahahaha.

As of January 1, 2005, registered domestic partners in California have many of the same rights and obligations as legally married spouses under state law, including community property rights and the right to receive support from one's partner after a separation. Domestic partners will both be considered legal parents of a child born into the partnership, without the necessity of an adoption. I am proud to be a Californian for things like this. Welcome to the club, NYers.

Now how to give you our weather....

Born and Raised in San Diego....been there, done that.
tecoyah asks someone to remind him why he actuallt DID move to NY

martinguerre · 02-04-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.

That and the "Gay Intifada"...

Damn, i had thought i had heard it all. That language is low and insulting, and i don't think it is in keeping with the spirit of this place. You're not talking about someone out here, some mysterious kind of thing you can hate. You're talking about people. People in your neighborhoods, your family, this community right here. It's sad what you're doing.

Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.

02-04-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.

Cheers to that, friend. We're all in this together no matter how we choose to live.

filtherton · 02-04-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.

The only reason a constitutional amendment was brought up last year was to get naive social conservatives on the gwb bandwagon. Notice how all mention of a constitutional amendment has dissappeared.

sixate · 02-04-2005, 02:08 PM

OK, maybe I'm the stupid one, but didn't this go up for vote and the people already decided? Aren't we, the people, the ones who decide what is constitutional, then our government act accordingly to what the people vote for? That's how it's supposed to work, right? The people spoke, and spoke overwhelmingly as to what they want. Our government is supposed to listen. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this bullshit.

Here's a news flash people. Everyone is not equal, never have been, and never will be. I'm not treated as well as a married couple so maybe I should bitch and whine and cry and sue so I can get tax breaks without being married or having kids......... Now, does anyone else see why this is complete fucking horeshit?

roachboy · 02-04-2005, 02:16 PM

um...i have no idea how the above is relevant.
look, this is an equal protection issue. period. the right knows that, if the matter is allowed to stay framed on these grounds, they will loose every time. and it puts them in a bad place. so what you get instead is crap left over from the christian coalitions mobilizations against proposition 2 in colorado (i think) about "special rights"--which is idiotic--and then a newer, more vile stream of simple bigotry wrapped up as a defense of tradition. with a little dollop of persecution complex thrown in for good measure.

so what results is that you have the christian right whining loudly about their fears of having the "homosexual lifestyle" "shoved down their throats" while they work to stuff their reactionary (breeder) conceptions down everyone's throat by every available political means.

what you also get is an effort to gut the entire idea of equal protection by gutting the idea of equality BEFORE THE LAW...which is a move that is so abysmal in its logic and possible consequences that i cannot imagine how any conservative--who in the main are about a version of equality before the law, framed in the fetishism of the fiction of the isolated individual--are able to choke out the sentences out without difficulty.

the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The state has nothing to gain by introducing
restrictions on the ways adults physically express their affection for each other,
and much to gain by not interfering with the intent of any adult couple to
form a legally recognized, civil union.

what possible state gain is there for a "legally recognized civil union"? And how does a "legally recognized civil union" differ from a MARRIAGE?

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

The only reason a constitutional amendment was brought up last year was to get naive social conservatives on the gwb bandwagon. Notice how all mention of a constitutional amendment has dissappeared.

It has? That's NOT what I'm hearing, and judging by the fact that 11 out of 11 states that held referendums on gay marriage (including Washington State, which ios as Left Coast Liberal as you can get) went AGAINST it, often by HUGE margins, it has a decent chance of passsage.

02-04-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

what possible state gain is there for a "legally recognized civil union"? And how does a "legally recognized civil union" differ from a MARRIAGE?

Marriage is in a church... it's a sacrament. From the stuff you've been saying i would have figured you knew that. The other, is for two people like me and my fiance who dont believe in God, but still want to commit to eachother and to get better financial aide for school and the tax break.

irateplatypus · 02-04-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud.

just as irrelevant as the post before yours. no one is trying to dictate who can love another person. the issue is a a legal one, it's about changing the definitions of marriage in a legal sense. do you really think state's have put issues concerning personal feelings toward another person on the ballot? surely not.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.

Anybody here who does NOT think that they're a pervert is suspect. I'm a heterosexual male in a 10+ year long monogamous relationship with my wife, and guess what? I'm a pervert. I enjoy sexual acts with my wife which could get me arrested in the State that I live in if performed outside of the bedroom, despite the fact that we're married. I'm sure that if I went into my personal kinks with my neighbors, I'd get a whole lot of "Ewwwwww!!!!" as a response.

I don't CARE who you love, or how you love them, or what other fetishes or whatever you're into (and YES, EVERYBODY has SOME kind of fetish unless they're dead). Hell, if your spouse dies and leaves you their body for your necropheliac tendencies, hey, that's just dandy in my book. You into Bukkake? No problem. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. But taking your personal perversions PUBLIC and demanding recognition for them is entirely another matter.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinktank

Marriage is in a church... it's a sacrament. From the stuff you've been saying i would have figured you knew that. The other, is for two people like me and my fiance who dont believe in God, but still want to commit to eachother and to get better financial aide for school and the tax break.

I do know that, which is why I see "gay marriage" as a problem. It infringes upon freedom of association (churchmembers being able to associate with whom they want), and is a matter of the State sticking it's nose into a RELIGIOUS matter.

You want better financial aid and tax breaks? Fine. Work for them. But don't try to codify your lifestyle.

Willravel · 02-04-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixate

OK, maybe I'm the stupid one, but didn't this go up for vote and the people already decided? Aren't we, the people, the ones who decide what is constitutional, then our government act accordingly to what the people vote for? That's how it's supposed to work, right? The people spoke, and spoke overwhelmingly as to what they want. Our government is supposed to listen. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this bullshit.

Here's a news flash people. Everyone is not equal, never have been, and never will be. I'm not treated as well as a married couple so maybe I should bitch and whine and cry and sue so I can get tax breaks without being married or having kids......... Now, does anyone else see why this is complete fucking horeshit?

Maybe we should take away your right to have sex with women. Then let's see you "bitch and whine and cry and sue". Let's take away your freedom to marry, and take away your freedom to love. Let's say "the world isn't fair, and there's nothing we can do about it" as we slowly die away.

-OR- we can be brave in the face of something we may not understand and say "I will do everything I possibly can to make sure that the law sees all people as being equal, whether I like it or not". I say it's horseshit to let bigoted people try to impose their small beliefs on other people.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinktank

Maybe I just dont understand the associated legislation well enough, but really, how can legal civil unions do harm to anyone?

It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.

02-04-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

But don't try to codify your lifestyle.

Hmm? I thought codify meant something similar to arrange/organize...?
Also... never said i supported gay marriage... i suggested no marriage, remember? CIVIL UNION... as in living with someone, property rights, and all that... nothing about it happening in a church. the Church is your problem, i leave those places alone.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I say it's horseshit to let bigoted people try to impose their small beliefs on other people.

That doesn't seem to stop you from trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of us, does it?

Man, that shoe sure does pinch when it's on the other foot, don't it?

02-04-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.

I need some specifics though, because as of right now, i've seen nothing factual as far as negative effects on me. Please explain, I'm honestly curious. My stance as of now is the fact that i dont think it'll do anything that effects me, which is why i support it. If it's what someone wants and it doesnt hurt me, why would i care?

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinktank

Hmm? I thought codify meant something similar to arrange/organize...?
Also... never said i supported gay marriage... i suggested no marriage, remember? CIVIL UNION... as in living with someone, property rights, and all that... nothing about it happening in a church. the Church is your problem, i leave those places alone.

Codify = introducing into the legal code, seeking to give a statutory base to a particular viewpoint.

What rights are you currently denied that cannot be gained by simple, straightforward contract law?

Willravel · 02-04-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.

What harm do those worms bring? Legal equlity just seems like it'd be worth the small trouble (lawsuits) that might come with it. Heterosexual marriages bring plenty of lawsuits, but no one is trying to have heterosexual marriages banned. The worst thing that might happen if they are found to have equal legal standing is the uproar from bigots, and not making a law simply to protect people from bigots seems extremly wrong.

02-04-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Codify = introducing into the legal code, seeking to give a statutory base to a particular viewpoint.

What rights are you currently denied that cannot be gained by simple, straightforward contract law?

Whoa, i'm straight. This isnt about me personally, i'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinktank

I need some specifics though, because as of right now, i've seen nothing factual as far as negative effects on me. Please explain, I'm honestly curious. My stance as of now is the fact that i dont think it'll do anything that effects me, which is why i support it. If it's what someone wants and it doesnt hurt me, why would i care?

I think it all comes down to the difference between tolerance and open acceptance as "normal". You do understand the difference, yes?

daswig · 02-04-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinktank

Whoa, i'm straight. This isnt about me personally, i'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Your sexual orientation is immaterial. What can't gay couples gain through standard contract law rather than legalization of "civil unions"?

martinguerre · 02-04-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Your sexual orientation is immaterial. What can't gay couples gain through standard contract law rather than legalization of "civil unions"?

visitation rights in hospitals don't usually allow for such contracts, or family can override them.

adoption rights don't often work otherwise.

health benifits don't transfer from your employer to a partner by contract of your making.

the list goes on.

oh, and some states are trying to ban contracts that would approximate civil partnership.

tecoyah · 02-04-2005, 03:17 PM

I will very rarely call someone out in public, It is always prefered to handle these things behind the scenes.

BUT.........outright Bigotry is unacceptable in these forums.
IT WILL CEASE NOW.........or someone will no longer be with us.

I do hope this is understood.

ObieX · 02-04-2005, 03:26 PM

What can't strait couples gain through a standard contract law rather than a civil union? Whats the point of marriage if there's no point to marriage? There are plenty of things they cant get w/o being recognized as a civil union. Tax breaks, financial aid.. etc.. these have ben mentioned by previous posters.

filtherton · 02-04-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It has? That's NOT what I'm hearing, and judging by the fact that 11 out of 11 states that held referendums on gay marriage (including Washington State, which ios as Left Coast Liberal as you can get) went AGAINST it, often by HUGE margins, it has a decent chance of passsage.

We're talking about the u.s. constitution here, not state referendums.

02-04-2005, 12:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	This is the best news I've heard all day. For weeks, really. Thank you, New York. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-04-2005, 12:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	And thus....we have my reasoning for living in NY. It sure ain't the freakin' weather. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-04-2005, 02:16 PM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	um...i have no idea how the above is relevant. look, this is an equal protection issue. period. the right knows that, if the matter is allowed to stay framed on these grounds, they will loose every time. and it puts them in a bad place. so what you get instead is crap left over from the christian coalitions mobilizations against proposition 2 in colorado (i think) about "special rights"--which is idiotic--and then a newer, more vile stream of simple bigotry wrapped up as a defense of tradition. with a little dollop of persecution complex thrown in for good measure. so what results is that you have the christian right whining loudly about their fears of having the "homosexual lifestyle" "shoved down their throats" while they work to stuff their reactionary (breeder) conceptions down everyone's throat by every available political means. what you also get is an effort to gut the entire idea of equal protection by gutting the idea of equality BEFORE THE LAW...which is a move that is so abysmal in its logic and possible consequences that i cannot imagine how any conservative--who in the main are about a version of equality before the law, framed in the fetishism of the fiction of the isolated individual--are able to choke out the sentences out without difficulty. the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love. it is as simple as that. even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love. great program, folks. you should be proud. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2005, 03:17 PM	#38 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	It is a Rarity I will very rarely call someone out in public, It is always prefered to handle these things behind the scenes. BUT.........outright Bigotry is unacceptable in these forums. IT WILL CEASE NOW.........or someone will no longer be with us. I do hope this is understood. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-04-2005, 03:26 PM	#39 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	What can't strait couples gain through a standard contract law rather than a civil union? Whats the point of marriage if there's no point to marriage? There are plenty of things they cant get w/o being recognized as a civil union. Tax breaks, financial aid.. etc.. these have ben mentioned by previous posters. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-04-2005, 01:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
thinktank Guest	I've been saying for a long time that the best way to solve this problem is to make civil-unions cool for any two human beings, and take away tax benefits for ALL couples. Us single people have been screwed long enough! Just using the term marriage is what started the whole problem. Dont take the word for a sacrament and make it the same word for something else... thats just like poking the religious crazies with a stick.

02-04-2005, 01:34 PM	#12 (permalink)
thinktank Guest	Maybe I just dont understand the associated legislation well enough, but really, how can legal civil unions do harm to anyone? They wouldnt raise taxes at all, right? If anything it wouldnt it just bring in more income for the state through more marriage licenses? Or am i wrong, is there something underlying that I'm missing?

02-04-2005, 02:08 PM	#19 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	OK, maybe I'm the stupid one, but didn't this go up for vote and the people already decided? Aren't we, the people, the ones who decide what is constitutional, then our government act accordingly to what the people vote for? That's how it's supposed to work, right? The people spoke, and spoke overwhelmingly as to what they want. Our government is supposed to listen. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this bullshit. Here's a news flash people. Everyone is not equal, never have been, and never will be. I'm not treated as well as a married couple so maybe I should bitch and whine and cry and sue so I can get tax breaks without being married or having kids......... Now, does anyone else see why this is complete fucking horeshit?