Commentary on the passage of Prop 8 in California

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's  thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.

If it is not a federal issue, then how can federal law prohibit polygamy?  Why wouldn't states be able to determine that?

State legislatures do outlaw polygamy. In Oklahoma, bigamy is a felony. See, 21 O.S. Sec. 881-883. As far as federal law, other than inthe context of interstate transportation, do you have a statute outlawing bigamy?

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy act of 1862 signed into law by Lincoln.  One of the only federal laws whose sole purpose was directed to stop specific conduct of a religious group.  Mormons tried to challenge the law but lost.  As recently as this summer, Senator Harry Reid introduced federal legislation to help coordinate federal prosecution of polygamists.

I am not saying that I agree with polygamy, but if marriage were truly a state issue, shouldn't polygamy be as well?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

The right-wingers hate Olbermann for that EXACT reason.  He's eloquent, unlike the screamers O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity...need I go on?

After a while, when you scream, people tend to tune you out.  I was married, I know this to be true.

[:O]

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.

The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?

Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

The right-wingers hate Olbermann for that EXACT reason.  He's eloquent, unlike the screamers O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity...need I go on?

After a while, when you scream, people tend to tune you out.  I was married, I know this to be true.

[:O]

Did you even hear Olbermann's pathetic special comment on prop 8? You call that eloquence? That wuss sounded like he was about to cry.

And another thing, when you talk about "screamers" on the right, I guess it was just oversight that Olbermann called Bush a fascist, shouting that Bush should "shut the hell up", and calling for just about every high profile republican to resign.

Olbermann is an abject hack and phony. Using Murrow's sign off as if he could even hold Murrow's jock. Olbermann has never broadcasted while bombs drop around him like Murrow. In fact, has this guy ever been to a war torn area? Has he gone to Iraq or Afghanistan to see first hand what war is like? I can tell you one thing, O'Reilly and Hannity (whom I rarely listen to because I have a job) have been there. Heck, Laura Ingraham has gone to Iraq.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.

The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?

Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member.  No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.

And, get a will.  They're free.  Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex.  You can leave property to anyone you wish.  Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

The right-wingers hate Olbermann for that EXACT reason.  He's eloquent, unlike the screamers O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity...need I go on?

After a while, when you scream, people tend to tune you out.  I was married, I know this to be true.

[:O]

Did you even hear Olbermann's pathetic special comment on prop 8? You call that eloquence? That wuss sounded like he was about to cry.

And another thing, when you talk about "screamers" on the right, I guess it was just oversight that Olbermann called Bush a fascist, shouting that Bush should "shut the hell up", and calling for just about every high profile republican to resign.

Olbermann is an abject hack and phony. Using Murrow's sign off as if he could even hold Murrow's jock. Olbermann has never broadcasted while bombs drop around him like Murrow. In fact, has this guy ever been to a war torn area? Has he gone to Iraq or Afghanistan to see first hand what war is like? I can tell you one thing, O'Reilly and Hannity (whom I rarely listen to because I have a job) have been there. Heck, Laura Ingraham has gone to Iraq.

Did I say I heard him?  No.  But, he is more eloquent on most matters than those right-wing screamers I noted.  He doesn't shout people down.

And just because you go to Iraq doesn't make you an expert.  Look at our current President and make your determination there.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.

The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?

Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member.  No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.

And, get a will.  They're free.  Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex.  You can leave property to anyone you wish.  Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.

You don't get it. Right now, there are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Do you really think any US citizen should be punished by the government because a loved one died without the chance to get a will in place? Talk about Fascism.

Actually I think you do get it, you just choose to see it your way because of your religious beliefs and/or your dislike of gay people. You're entitled to your opinion, but no one is entitled to step on my rights as an equal American citizen. That is why it will change eventually and the US Supreme court will step in.

[guido911]

Azbadpuppy wrote:

"[T]here are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional."

My understanding of civil rights law is a little fuzzy. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supremes overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law because the state was not permitted to criminalize that sexual behavior. Has the Supremes declared, though, that being homosexual is a protected class similar to race/gender/age? That is the standard for constitutionality of a statute.

Now, whether something is "discriminatory" is another matter, because you know the government discriminates against classes of persons all the time. For example, think about who is required by law to register for selective service? Better yet, one cannot be president unless they are at least 35.  

[pmcalk]

^^No, homosexuality is not a protected class.  The majority opinion in Lawrence determine sodomy laws unconstitional based upon the right to privacy.  However, O'Conner based her rationale on the equal protection portion of the constitution; in other words, because the law was directed at a group of people based upon their gender, it did involve a protected class (as I recall the law in Texas only made sodomy illegal for persons of the same sex).  Following O'Conner's reasoning, then prohibiting couples from marrying based upon their sex could violate the equal protection provision of the Constitution.  I don't think any courts have picked up upon O'Conner's thinking, though.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.

The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?

Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member.  No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.

And, get a will.  They're free.  Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex.  You can leave property to anyone you wish.  Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.

You don't get it. Right now, there are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Do you really think any US citizen should be punished by the government because a loved one died without the chance to get a will in place? Talk about Fascism.

Actually I think you do get it, you just choose to see it your way because of your religious beliefs and/or your dislike of gay people. You're entitled to your opinion, but no one is entitled to step on my rights as an equal American citizen. That is why it will change eventually and the US Supreme court will step in.

1.  What laws are you talking about (other then same sex marriage)?

2.  If you die without a will, no matter who you are or what sex you are, your estate goes to probate.

3.  Funny.  I have questions and you immediately assume I hate gay people.  That's too bad.  I'm actually on the fence for gay marriage.  I just think hospital visitation and estate planning are week issues to make the argument.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

Just transfer an interest of your home to your partner or get your home in joint tenancy. It should pass to your partner as a matter of law upon your death. After all, that's what straight married couples do.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.

Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.

The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?

Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member.  No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.

And, get a will.  They're free.  Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex.  You can leave property to anyone you wish.  Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.

You don't get it. Right now, there are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Do you really think any US citizen should be punished by the government because a loved one died without the chance to get a will in place? Talk about Fascism.

Actually I think you do get it, you just choose to see it your way because of your religious beliefs and/or your dislike of gay people. You're entitled to your opinion, but no one is entitled to step on my rights as an equal American citizen. That is why it will change eventually and the US Supreme court will step in.

1.  What laws are you talking about (other then same sex marriage)?

2.  If you die without a will, no matter who you are or what sex you are, your estate goes to probate.

3.  Funny.  I have questions and you immediately assume I hate gay people.  That's too bad.  I'm actually on the fence for gay marriage.  I just think hospital visitation and estate planning are week issues to make the argument.

I understand what you are saying, but I answered your questions as to why the laws are currently biased against same sex couples. Your answer is just to take care of it before anything bad happens and you won't have an issue. Well, in a perfect world that would be great. However, not everyone is able to do that, and the difference is that when straight couples don't take care of things in advance the law doesn't work against them. Married legal spouses automatically have the right for hospital visitation, unrecognized spouses do not. Homes transfer automatically to a state-recognized legal spouse- no so in the case of same sex couples. Same sex couples have to make special provisions to protect themselves. I'm not sure why it's so hard to see the bias here, unless of course you have other issues or religious beliefs, which really shouldn't have anything to with the law anyway.

Pardon me if I take this issue personally, but put yourself in my shoes. What if someone was trying to take away your right to marry and to receive the same benefits as everyone else, purely for their so called 'moral' or religious beliefs.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

Just transfer an interest of your home to your partner or get your home in joint tenancy. It should pass to your partner as a matter of law upon your death. After all, that's what straight married couples do.

I totally get that, and I do have all of my interests in order. I was speaking hypothetically to show that the laws are currently such that if you pass unexpectedly without provisions in place, the legally recognized spouse will not lose their house, but spouses not legally recognized could lose their home with no questions asked in most states currently. Having to make special provisions to protect yourself against unfair laws may be the reality, but it doesn't make it right. The fact that same sex couples aren't even given the chance to be able to make their status legal is offensive and unfair.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?

Just transfer an interest of your home to your partner or get your home in joint tenancy. It should pass to your partner as a matter of law upon your death. After all, that's what straight married couples do.

Having to make special provisions to protect yourself against unfair laws may be the reality, but it doesn't make it right. The fact that same sex couples aren't even given the chance to be able to make their status legal is offensive and unfair.

I agree with that. Good discussion.

[cannon_fodder]

On polygamy...

Polygamy is banned by state and federal law, the pretense is tax purposes as well as intestate (without a will) succession.  The law simply does not handle multiple spouse arrangements in those instances.  Also, it is the archaic understanding that a man could take advantage of women by having multiple wives that are unaware why moving about the county (women can't take care of themselves remember, back in the day abandoning ones family and moving west was not unheard of), instead of a notice or co-signature requirement, they ban it.  Right or wrong, that's why it is illegal.

It is criminal because a marriage is a contract endorsed by the state.  That contract is only allowed to exist between 2 people exclusively at any one time.  Hence, if you have multiple legal marriages it is a fraud on the government.

It is NOT illegal to have religious marriages between multiple parties nor to live together as if married.  The crime is to have multiple legal marriages on the books.

In my world, this practice would be legal also.  There are many social as well as family issues IMHO that are unsettling (not the least of which, if Bill Gates takes 1,000 wives because he can afford to... that's 1000 men who will have no wife), but there are no compelling reasons to ban the practice.  

Even the religious argument doesn't work well here.  Jews had multi wives until their omnipotent god changes his mind.  He changed his mind and allowed Muslims to have multiple wives, until some sects decided that wasn't cool. He then changed his mind again and allowed Mormons to have multiple wives, until it was unpopular and he changed his mind again.  If God is so confused on the issue, why would the US Government get it right the first time?

/someone talk my wife into polygamy, then talk Ellen Page into it (named the first young actor that came to mind... insert whomever you want)