Marriage is supposed to be a sacred union
Posted By: Rep. on 2005-11-30
In Reply to: This reminds me of my - born-again cousin - sm - Starcat
but unfortunately many see it as a temporary situation. Some people honestly cannot help their marriages dissolve, however, even if you throw the religion aspect out of it homosexuality doesn't even make sense in Darwin's theory. Homosexuals would naturally die out, because they aren't procreating.
I've not had children either, but just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't make a case for homosexual marriages.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Sex is just a small part of marriage. What marriage
So why is the fact that two people who happen to love and support each other, but who have a different concept of it than you do, are so incredibly threatening to you? Even if it WERE a 'sin' (which it absolutely is NOT), why would it be any business of yours? Did God fly down out of the sky and annoint your head, hand you a cape and superpowers, and tell you to go out and rid the world of same-sex love? I don't think so.
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
if you had a union....
you would have no job at all because they would have convinced you all to strike, MQ would have said "too bad for you," and you would now be unemployed. that is what unions do.
Yes, I would. These union members...
need to realize that the free ride and good ol' days are over. The days of high wages, job banks, and guaranteed employment have ended. No wonder Toyota, Honda and the like do so well as compared to their American counterparts.
What about the union busters?
We all know who they are. This was totally predictable. Start at the bottom when assigning blame and put the onus on the ones who turn the wheels of the factories and earn the LEAST, then expect them to sacrifice the most and carry the weight of the management and CEOs who earn anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than they do.
Watch them start whining if they decide to use TARP funds, thus depriving the banks of all those funds they have been hoarding, forcing workers to stage round-the-clock sit-ins just to get paid.
My husband is union....
He works for a trucking firm and told me this morning the union was talking about them taking a 10% cut in pay. The difference between him (or maybe his company?) is that he thinks no problem- his pay is good as it is and if it keeps the company going, why not? I think the car industry might think the same. Did they not say no cuts in pay??
Union Workers
How does your husband feel about voting out in the open; no more secret ballots? That's quite audacious!
Todd Palin is a card-carrying union guy, too.
And why did the union workers
walk off the job? That's right. For better benefits, health care, retirement and working conditions which ALSO benefited non-union workers, even those scabs who went in and did the jobs. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Great (NOT!) the unions have lost their teeth in the ability to even strike and thus to bargain. Ole Ronnie got employers the "right to permanently replace workers." Read up on the history of unions. Ever watch the movie "Jimmy Hoffa?" Yes he made deals with criminals i.e. the mafia but he did much to help workers too. Ultimately he paid with his life. Union/non-union is sort of like arguing democrat/republican. Those for/against don't want to hear any side other than their own.
Right and we don't have a union to stand up for us either. n/m
x
Are you SERIOUS? Here's what the European Union
The EU is a political and economic union of 27 members states, located primarily in Europe, composed of almost 500 million citizens (as compared to 710 million on the total continent of Europe), or 7.3% of the world's total population. The EU generates 30% of the wold's nominal gross domestic product ($16.8 trillion in 2007). There are 23 official and working languages. It is 100% SECULAR in nature
Criteria for membership:
1. Stable democracy which respects human rights and rule of law.
2. Functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU.
3. Acceptance of obligations of membership (EU law).
EU member countries:
1. Austria
2. Belguim
3. Bulgaria
4. Cyprus
5. Czech Rebpulic
6. Denmark
7. Estonia
8. Finland
9. France
10. Germany
11. Greece
12. Hungary
13. Republic of Ireland
14. Italy
15. Latvia
16. Lithuania
17. Luxembourg
18. Malta
19. Netherlands
20. Poland
21. Portugal
22. Romania
23. Slovakia
24. Slovenia
25. Spain
26. Sweden
27. United Kingdom
Three official candidate countries are Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized potential candidates. Kosovo has been granted similar status.
Areas of common shared interests:
1. Governance of institutions, legal system and fundamental rights.
2. Foreign relations including humanitarian aid, military and defense.
3. Justice and home affairs.
4. Economy, consisting of single market, monetary union, competition and budget.
5. Development of agriculture, energy, infrastructure, regional development, environment, education and research.
For more information on its history and details of the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
The union was also very strong until
the economy started really going under after 9/11. At GM, if you were "laid off" you still received 95% of your pay. They would get the regular unemployment benefits and GM would supplement the rest. This was in their contract, which to me is GMs fault, not the employee.
If it was a permanent layoff, then you went to the job banks, where you would sit for 40 hours a week, receive full pay and schooling if you wanted it. They only allowed so many people in the job banks, but it was numbering in the thousands at one point. These people also had the option of volunteering in the community instead of just sitting there. I know 3 that went on to get their degrees in other lines of work and about 10 that waited there until retirement.
This was set up in the 70s when the first massive layoff hit. This guaranteed that GM would hire back the employees that were laid off instead of hiring people off the streets. Another union thing.
I think Amanda is right from below. They made a lot of money over time and now that things are bad again, they didn't plan ahead and budget their money. No one is going to bail me out, pay my mortgage, feed my family, electric bill, etc. I know that having them go down is going to hurt many people and that is not what I want, but the bailouts that have already happened have not shown the execs to be responsible in any way. My father will be one of those losing their health benefits as well and he has medical conditions too as well as my mom. My husband works for one of their suppliers so we are affected as well. My husband busts his rear day in and day out for $17 an hour with no benefits. Overtime is not allowed. I guess I just want them to show responsibility.
No. I just wish we could get some union control
nm
AAMT is not a workers' union.
x
it doesn't take a union to get a pay raise
puhleez lighten up. I do not and will not support unions. At first unions were good. then they got too large and too powerful, corrupt and greedy, and unions were no longer a good thing. They stopped working for the people they were supposed to represent and started working for the benefit of the union itself. My father worked for a company where he had to be in the union. That union wanted more and more of the company (as they always did). Even though many, many of the employees voted against strike, some people did, and the union declared the strike and people walked off their jobs. My dad wanted to work; he was physically assaulted and our car destroyed when he tried to work. Don't call my father a "scab." He was a fine man raising three kids and wanting to work at his own job, which he loved and was proud of. Period. The strike lasted a long time, and the company finally closed its doors when the union would not concede to anything. All of the employees lost their jobs whether they were union supporters or not because of the actions of that union. Now that's why I don't like unions and never will. There used to be a large manufacturing sector here in the midwest. Unions destroyed much of it. They just keep demanding more and more, and many companies simply closed, thus placing 1000s on unemployment. And do you honestly think corruption in the union is okay as long as "he also benefitted American workers?" I never belonged to a union as an MT for 30'some years, and do you think I never got a raise? The hospitals and companies I worked for always paid well and we didn't need a union to do it for us. Actually, I think fear of unions was one of the reasons why. But let's not forget this, union membership is often mandatory so people who work for the organization are forced to be members whether they want to or not. That right there is just wrong. People outside of the union are denied the right to work in many areas. So don't tell me what to "b**ch about." The two items are no mutually inclusive. One can say that their pay has fallen behind and still not want a union involved. Have a little respect for opinions other than yours.
The Real State of the Union sm
http://www.rstu.org/index.php/about/
union people will still get paid for doing nothing.
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
Misstatement of the Union - Fact Check
The President burnishes the State of the Union through selective facts and strategic omissions.
February 1, 2006
Modified: February 1, 2006
The President left out a few things when surveying the State of the Union:
He proudly spoke of writing a new chapter in the story of self-government in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very group whose statistics he cited.
Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush took office is just a little more than 2 million.
He talked of cutting spending, but only non-security discretionary spending. Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent since Bush took office.
He spoke of being on track to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
Bush spoke of a goal of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil, failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum products increased substantially during his first five years in office, reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.
Analysis
We found nothing that was factually incorrect in the President's Jan. 31 State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. However, we did note some selective use of statistics. We also found that Bush omitted some relevant facts that tended to make the state of the union look less rosy than he presented.
it was 1973, Union Square Park in NYC..
as were all these Pro-Lifers kept back behind Bob's Barricade wooden horses....I was there, hundreds were there on 14th Street that day prior to Roe vs Wade being passed....
I was very young....and I remember having this thought....If they are SOOOO interested in what is going on in my and other's uteruses/uteri....why do they NOT take some responsibility for the orphaned/fostered/forgotten children left in this country? Again, I had that thought in 1973....and 35 years have passed and I STILL have the same thought.......my politics never changed......I am that same person I was then, only more mature, somewhat wiser, and very thankful....and I HAVE taken responsibility for MANY children in this country as I adore children....always have...
wonder just how many prolifers have adopted or fostered children left in fostercare/orphanages in this country.....over the same 35-40 year time frame......
that's not to them, they are entitled to feel what they feel...even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
just get out of our bodies......our bodies, ourselves....(and Our Bodies, Ourselves is a book read way back then too)...and try to think about kids already here, abandoned or given up with no mentoring.....there are thousands of them in the USA.
Peace to all.....
the folly is in giving all the power to a union...
The union may not be a thing of the past but their concern for the average worker is and their usefulness is. Now they are greedy and selfish entities in and of themselves.
By all means give the union workers a pay cut S/M
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_05092008.htm
Going way down the page you will find the median pay for medical transcriptionists is approximately $15.02 per hour. This being the case, if you are one of those fortunate enough to be making $20 or more per hour, I assume you will be recommending a pay cut for yourself and all others who are making more than the median in order to bring pay more in line with other workers. Translated that means leaving more in the coffers for the big CEOs. I don't know whether some of you are BDD or what.
Right. A friend of mine belonged to a union recently.
nm
Think gain.... Soviet Union went waaaay past
--
A look into JM's first marriage...sm
While John McCain was a prisoner, his wife Carol never lost hope. During his incarceration as a prisoner of war, Carol was involved in a horrific car accident that almost took her life, having to go through about 20 operations in hopes that she would walk again. While her husband was gone, Ross Perot paid her medical bills that were not covered by John's government insurance. When he got back from Vietnam and saw the shape she was in, no longer a beautiful slim model, and quite disabled, he started carousing and ended up meeting Cindy his present wife who was young, beautiful and rich. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
NO. Marriage is between a man
x
Marriage
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want to have civil unions, that's perfectly fine with me but what they have is not and never will be a marriage. It's only a few squeaky wheels that everyone gives all the attention to. There are FAR MORE people in this country that are opposed to gays wanting to call their unions a marriage than are okay with it. In the last couple of decades, everyone tries to be so PC and not step on anyone's toes to the point we just let everything pass as okay, when it is not.
We let abortion laws pass when there are far more who oppose abortion. We let gays think they have the right to marry when there are far more people who are adamantly against it. It is my business when everyone runs all over the majority of us just to pacify the few who just like to push the envelope on everything. Gays have rights just like me. No one is ever happy with what they have. Gays can adopt children just like anyone and those children are theirs forever....just like anyone else. They want their partner to come to the hospital when they're sick, they can list their name as the next of kin just like anyone else and that has to be honored by the hospital. All this garbage they throw out there about their rights is just that, garbage and hooplah to get their agendas pushed.
Flame all you want....
Marriage
is between a man and a woman. Same sex people will never be married, just as they can't ever have sexual intercourse. Beam me up Scottie.
GOP alert memo states intent to bust the union
With 3 million jobs hanging in the balance.
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.
Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout
Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:
1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.
2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.
The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx
She is challeging marriage...sm
It is my *assumption* (but you know what they say about assumptions) that she is not married and/or doesn't understand what it takes to be a supportive wife. Sometimes we have to let go of something we want or enjoy for the benefit of the bigger picture.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
OK. So how do you feel about same-sex marriage?
For or against? And why?
 I am personally for it. It hurts nobody, but for some reason all the religiosos seem to be terrified of it.
All the old subjects are pretty stale. So here's a new one. State your views.
But if marriage is 'sacred', then why do so many -sm
end in separation, or divorce, or WORSE? Such as domestic violence and sometimes murder?
I think marriage vows should be about love, respect, and loyalty to another person, not about their religion or their gender.
Some of my gay friends are now legally married in this state, and it changes nothing in my life, or anyone else's. But it changes so much for them. They enjoyed their ceremonies as much as any couple and their loved ones would. And having the same legal rights as anyone else is huge, as well.
No, who or what gender another person falls in love with and marries has absolutely no bearing on religion, or on anyone else's lives. Isn't religion supposed to be about love for one's fellow humans, and about peace and charity?
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
About homosexual marriage....
they put it to a vote in one of the most liberal states in the country (california) and the people voted to ban it. It PASSED. In with Obama, out with gay marriage. Gotta love those Californians. Wonder what all those gays Newsom "married" are gonna do now??? Bit of a sticky wicket there.
Marriage is more than just a label (sm)
The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
by Kathy Belge
You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?
First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.
Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.
What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
Homosexual" marriage" is very
offensive to me, yet there are still those pushing it in my face. Homo is a shortened version of the word homosexual. If you are so sensitive, I can type the entire word. There are African-Americans in my family and I have never used the F word in my life. You DO have a choice in who you love. If you didn't child molesters wouldn't be prosecuted because they wouldn't be able to stop their "attractions" and "love" of children. Prosecuting them would be inhuman. A law can't stop an attraction. It can only stop you from acting on it and consent can always be changed. Age is just a number and with all the people who feel like their "love" should not be controlled, no telling when our children will be the next targets. There is no homosexual gene so give that a rest. People of all persuasions can change their feelings on a whim. I find the entire aspect of homosexuality disrespectful to the human race. If you don't like what someone thinks, let's try to change the law and stop their thoughts. Homosexuals are just like BIG BROTHER.
Marriage is for one man and one woman
If gays and lesbians want to show their commitment, then a civil union is for them. Don't redefine something thousands of years old just because it's "politically correct." I am so sick of it political correctness. I understand civil unions so that G/L couples can have health insurance, etc., but don't change what marriage means to so many of the rest of us. It is so much more than a legality and a commitment, it's about becoming one and having children, and continuing the tradition for generations.
Defining marriage is not a theocracy
It's just common sense since two people of the common sex cannot procreate.
...and no I don't advocate a theocracy.
It is like the old song Love and Marriage
You can't have one without the other.
President Obama inherited the nightmare that was created by George W. Bush. You cannot talk about what President Obama is doing without discussing the fact that George W. Bush and his cronies destroyed this country.
No one's "changing the tradition of marriage".
X
Oh geez - are you still here? Yeah, same-sex marriage
this act was most likely done by a heterosexual male. And you know what? Sometimes the most heinous acts are committed by ultra-religious people. So your standard of 'morals' doesn't apply here. Get on the internet someday and look up how many sex offenders live in YOUR neighborhood, maybe even right next-door or across the street. Their offenses have nothing to do with what you think is the 'loose morals' of the country, it has to do with the mental illness of the perpetrator.
BTW - how old are you, anyway? 85? 95? 105? It seems like, in your mind anyway, you're living in a time that was more than a century ago.
Bigamists, polygamists and marriage, oh my! sm
The prefix "poly" means multiple, thus polygamy means multiple marriages at the same time.
The previx "bi" means 2, thus bigamy means 2 marriages at the same time.
Either way, both terms mean more than 1 marriage at a time.
Polygamists and bigamists are merely groups of people who, for whatever reason, want to marry their partners, just as gays want to do. You claim that gay marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other and who happen to be of the same sex. Who is to say that polygamists and bigamists don't love all their partners and want to marry them as well?
Love may or may not be in the equation for same sex marriage (even straight people are sometimes known to marry for reasons other than love), but another reason, if not the larger reason, is for the other benefits a legal marriage affords such as the right to make decisions for each other in medical and legal situations.
Therefore, what is stopping polygamists and bigamists from demanding the same rights to marriage?
Absolutely nothing.
Then perhaps abolishing marriage is the answer
By your reasoning, allowing men to marry women seems to make gay couples think they have the right to be married. Therefore, better to eliminate women rather than let those uppity homos think they can be married.
A woman's right to vote was denied for years because of the fear that women would abandon their families and become somehow less feminine if they were granted that right. Do you agree that we should not have been given the right to vote because of someone's fear of what *might* happen?
I feel like that scene in Ghostbusters where Venkman says, "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria." In this country, I don't believe we've got a right to refuse rights to one group just because another group is liable to end up wanting right, too. I thought we'd stopped using that reasoning back in the 1800s.
Maine Passes Gay Marriage Law
AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.
“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”
Why not leave marriage up to the churches
There are some churches performing marriages now and have been for years. Go to the court house and get your "union license" and then get married whereever the heck you can. My Presbyterian church has been performing weddings for gays for almost 20 years.
I am a Christian and do believe in gay marriage. Speak for yourself. sm
.
Not just drugs..."freedom" when it comes to gay marriage, also
...to think about what Barney Frank falls off of...or into...or anything else that makes me want to run my brain through an autoclave.
Palin and McCain's Shotgun Marriage
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-and-mccains-shotgun-marriage
PA just struck down the common law marriage last year
Until then, if you stated you were married to a person, called them husband and wife, and went to a lawyer to papers made up and signed, you had the same rights as a married couple.
If you wanted to separate, you had to follow the rules of married couples and go through the courts.
Through common-law marriage, the couples were also recognized by the federal government as being married. Some states did not recognize common-law marriage, so if you wanted to move to another state, you had to be careful where you moved. You had to pick a state that recognized it.
My point being, I don't see why Civil Unions would not fall under the same rules as common-law marriages. They are the "same difference."
It's very hard to contest a will and the party who contests it is the one who must pay the legal fees (not sure if its for both parties or just the one contesting). Anyone can leave anything to anybody in a will if they are "of sound mind and judgment."
Hasn't anyone checked CA to see if they have common-law marriage?
|
