Marriage Petition

[Player0]

http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml

I'm not here to explain it, or change anyones opinions, but I personally feel that we're headed for some seriously troubled times soon in the USA.

If you think that every human deserves equal civil rights, then sign this petition.

If you think that gays are second class citizens that shouldn't have rights, or you just don't care either way, then don't sign it.

I honestly beleive that the bushheads of the country aren't voting anti-gay marriage, they are voting anti-gay. I think thats akin to voting anti-woman or anti-black or anti-jew. We got a lot of that out of our system though, Im hoping we can stop hating and judging our fellow humans all together some day.

I know that sounds a bit cliche, but I have many friends with alternative lifestyles, I know there are a number of folks on this board who are, and I know that most everyone has family and friends who are (and probably don't even know). When you vote based on prejudices and stereotypes, you end up hurting people. Thats all.

[The Dark Hacker]

i think the government should stay out of the citizens personal lives. let them do what they want. people live in america to be free and have equal rights but now adays it seems that this is just a dream. people that think that racism is gone are sadly mistaken. i believe everybody is intitled to there own life style not matter what or how they are. the government is just to contolled by money to see that

[Synthohol]

three more sigs from this house :)

[Slide]

Only one person in my house, so that's all the sigs they get here, but I've forwarded it on to family/friends.

[Nettik]

Exactly, a proper government is doing the most for you without interferring with your or anybody else's life.

:Nettik

[unacceptable_risk]

Every human eh...hows that Guantanamo bay thing going?

I think perhaps its time to re-evalutate what marriage is. I don't know what your defacto laws are like over there, but here if you live like a couple for 6 months, you are legally bound to anything a marriage would bind you to anyway. It kind of makes marriage irrelevant in some ways.

I believe that the actual relationship is more important than the contract, which is so easily broken. It doesn't change with sexual preference. So whats the big attraction to marriage?

[Gregorach]

So whats the big attraction to marriage?

Over 1000 federally-defined legal benefits, including such trivia as the right to inherit your spouse's home on their death, and the right to visit them in hospital. As it currently stands, if your gay partner dies and their name is on the deeds, their homophobic parents who haven't spoken to them in 20 years have the automatic right to inherit the house you're living in and claim the life insurance. Little things like that...

[unacceptable_risk]

Ahh, thats an issue. Can that sort of thing be handled with a proper will?

[Nettik]

Gregorach really hit the spot. I mean some people a few years ago just took people to court because of the benefits of going to equal schools and riding buses for the benefits, but not the gays, they are different, right?

Also, let me guess the majority of people want to get married for the benefits, you and the gays right?

:Nettik

[unacceptable_risk]

Not sure I follow you there Nettik, But I understand what Gregorach is getting at.
Just did some reading about it. No wonder Divorce is such a huge industry. I also saw some stories about people suing for breach of contract, when their partner filed for divorce. I hope you guys get your equality over there, Good luck. :)

[Player0]

Even the best laid wills are a legal hornets nest. It doesn't take much to invalidate the entire thing. I have friends who have been kicked out of hospitals and stuff because they weren't 'family' to their partener. Things like Power of Attorney and other contractual agreements only go so far.

I certainly understand that marriage is just a contract, just a word, and if you really love someone that shouldnt matter. But, to most families at least in the US, it does. The ceremonies and legalities of it can really help make the commitment seem more real to friends and family.

But mostly, its just about the benefits you cant get. Yeah, theres a tax break and stuff, but most people I know who are serious about it would probably be willing to pay MORE to have the marriage. Its not about the money. It's not about rubbing it in other peoples faces (as I have heard it explained).

[Gregorach]

Ahh, thats an issue. Can that sort of thing be handled with a proper will?

Some things can, some things can't... For example, many pensions have defined spousal benefits which can't be transferred - if you don't have a spouse in the technical legal sense of the term, the benefits just evaporate. Same goes for health insurance - your "family" may be covered, but as far as the law's concerned your gay partner is not a member of your family.

[Nettik]

Same goes for health insurance - your "family" may be covered, but as far as the law's concerned your gay partner is not a member of your family.

That is the part that needs to be fixed. I do not even know how in the hell there are problems with gays. Lesbian sites are one of the most clicked internet revenue in the United States, but we have problems with gays? How can a guy sit in a chair and get off on two gay females, which is "unnatural," then be pissed about two guys having "unnatural" sex. It is purely amazing.

If you do not like gays they you should hate everbody then; blacks, mexicans, catholics, mormons, old people, californians. For if your not old then they do something in a way they do not, which is a culture in a way, your culture is not more right because you are in it in any way. It is just the culture you prefer or allowed to be within. Sterotype: Old people drive slow. Well pass them up, ever thought if they drove fast what would happen? I mean I live close to Santa Monica and quite bit dead people probably wish that old guy drove slow. Amen :P

:Nettik

[mdzcpa]

I certainly understand that marriage is just a contract, just a word

No it is not. Marriage is actually one of the most special of the Holy Sacraments under christianity.

Governments just decided to recognize the religious sacrament as a form of official civil union for simplicity sake back when the government was closer to its original faith based foundation.

If proper civil union laws are adopted, gays can be afforded all the rights and treatments that "married" folks have. In fact, this trend has already been growing.

Over 1000 federally-defined legal benefits, including such trivia as the right to inherit your spouse's home on their death, and the right to visit them in hospital. As it currently stands, if your gay partner dies and their name is on the deeds, their homophobic parents who haven't spoken to them in 20 years have the automatic right to inherit the house you're living in and claim the life insurance. Little things like that...

This is bullshit pure and simple. And it is this hollow rhetoric that blows credibility out of the water and keeps gays from obtaining the proper civil union rights they really need.

NO parents or siblings of deceased grantors have "automatic" rights which take precedent over a properly executed will. A grantor can leave his/her estate with anyone they choose...be it a life partner, the next door neighbor, or the mailman for that matter. Serious malfeasance must be proven to unwind a binding will.

Some things can, some things can't... For example, many pensions have defined spousal benefits which can't be transferred - if you don't have a spouse in the technical legal sense of the term, the benefits just evaporate. Same goes for health insurance - your "family" may be covered, but as far as the law's concerned your gay partner is not a member of your family.

This is also purely incorrect. The benefits originally extended to domestic partners of Federal employees under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 1998 has been further extended to non federal employees by most major insurance carriers. In fact, its hard to find an insurance carrier in the US now without a domestic partnership clause due to the lawsuits gays have brought against the insurance companies.


Gentlemen - get your facts straight. If you really care about gay rights, you must be careful not to fall into the same mis informed bandwagon which is off handidly disregarded due to credibility issues.

Gay rights will be furthered only through pursuit of equal civil union laws.

Pursuing "gay marriage" is a loosing proposition until you convince the religious right that the Sacrement of Marriage is allowable. That, I am afraid will never happen.

Gay people have a damn good shot at getting civil union rights if they work hard enough at it. But cluttering it up using the "marriage" word...which is undeniably founded in as a religious sacrement...is doomed to failure.

Furthermore, one must consider ALL forms of possible civil union...within reason of course. A man cannot form a union with his goat. But, he certainly should be able to form a civil union with ANY other human being who has the conscious ability to recognize his/her decision. This means brothers and sisters, neighbors, co-workers, you name it...it ALL must be protected and equally treated. You cannot legitimize a civil union simply because one partner is having some form of sex with the other. Therefore, all forms of unions must be allowed.

And moreso, the question must be asked as to where to draw the line. Can 3 people have a union? Why not? Remember, answers founded in the religious overtones of "marrage" don't count. So, if two poeple who "love each other" (which really is not a requirement of civil union anyway) can have a civil union, why not three...or four people who all "love each other".

I think everyone here has grossly blurred the line between equal treatment under civil union with the religious sacrement of marriage.

Think carefully before you sign anything that uses gay and marriage in the same sentence and ask yourself if you are really helping the cause of equal and fair treatment, or just falling into the same trap so many before you have fallen into.

***How about THAT for a first post in a long time post:)***

[Player0]

No it is not. Marriage is actually one of the most special of the Holy Sacraments under christianity.

Marriage may very well be part of Christianity, however, that doesn't mean Marriage remains exclusive to Christianity, or to any religion. Marriages of many different types occur as a sociological behaviour of human beings all over the planet. Marriage is a social right for humans, and I WILL NOT agree that it belongs to any subculture of humanity like the Christians.

Governments just decided to recognize the religious sacrament as a form of official civil union for simplicity sake back when the government was closer to its original faith based foundation.

I had a state wedding, and there was nothing religious about it. Marriage was a civil union. To argue the symmantecs of the term 'marriage' itself I beleive is moot. In Christianity, a Marriage may mean a sacred bond between a Man and a Woman. In other religions, it may mean a sacred bond between a Man and several Women. If you have your own beleifs, than you can define marriage however you wish.

NO parents or siblings of deceased grantors have "automatic" rights which take precedent over a properly executed will. A grantor can leave his/her estate with anyone they choose...be it a life partner, the next door neighbor, or the mailman for that matter. Serious malfeasance must be proven to unwind a binding will.

True.

This is also purely incorrect. The benefits originally extended to domestic partners of Federal employees under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 1998 has been further extended to non federal employees by most major insurance carriers. In fact, its hard to find an insurance carrier in the US now without a domestic partnership clause due to the lawsuits gays have brought against the insurance companies.

I have several friends who are not able to insure their life parteners, so I have a tendancy not to agree that this is 'good enough'.

Pursuing "gay marriage" is a loosing proposition until you convince the religious right that the Sacrement of Marriage is allowable. That, I am afraid will never happen.

I don't think you can say never. And I wouldnt agree that it's a loosing proposition, as I simply don't agree that any group has a right to the definition of what 'marriage' is. And, I wouldn't really be willing to give up that definition.

Gay people have a damn good shot at getting civil union rights if they work hard enough at it. But cluttering it up using the "marriage" word...which is undeniably founded in as a religious sacrement...is doomed to failure.

Don't agree that anyone can claim it will fail or not.

Furthermore, one must consider ALL forms of possible civil union...within reason of course. A man cannot form a union with his goat. But, he certainly should be able to form a civil union with ANY other human being who has the conscious ability to recognize his/her decision. This means brothers and sisters, neighbors, co-workers, you name it...it ALL must be protected and equally treated. You cannot legitimize a civil union simply because one partner is having some form of sex with the other. Therefore, all forms of unions must be allowed.

Let the zoophiles have their own battle ;)

And moreso, the question must be asked as to where to draw the line. Can 3 people have a union? Why not? Remember, answers founded in the religious overtones of "marrage" don't count. So, if two poeple who "love each other" (which really is not a requirement of civil union anyway) can have a civil union, why not three...or four people who all "love each other".

I argue that marriage can't simple be synonymous with civil union. The polygamists can have their own battle as well ;)

I think everyone here has grossly blurred the line between equal treatment under civil union with the religious sacrement of marriage.

Nope, I have my reasons and haven't confused anything ;)

Think carefully before you sign anything that uses gay and marriage in the same sentence and ask yourself if you are really helping the cause of equal and fair treatment, or just falling into the same trap so many before you have fallen into.

I'm not sure anyone has legally challenged the definition of marriage. People seem more concerned with blocking the civil unions rather than worrying about the symmantecs of the definition, from a legal aspect.

[Gregorach]

One should also bear in mind that several of the "anti-gay marriage" ballot initiatives recently passed did not only ban gay marrigage, but any extension of other civil partnership rights to gays.

Oh, and various sects of Christianity have recognised marriage as a bond between one man and several women.

[Gregorach]

Mike - you might also be interested in perusing the following document from the General Accounting Office's Office of General Council, which sets out the 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is known to be a factor:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

On the subject of inheritance and wills, whilst it is true that a properly drawn-up will cannot be overturned, there are still important differences in how inheritance is taxed dependant on marital status. You get tax breaks for being married.

[mdzcpa]

Marriage may very well be part of Christianity, however, that doesn't mean Marriage remains exclusive to Christianity, or to any religion. Marriages of many different types occur as a sociological behaviour of human beings all over the planet. Marriage is a social right for humans, and I WILL NOT agree that it belongs to any subculture of humanity like the Christians.

Actually "marriage" per se is a judio christian term. Just because you use the "marriage" label to describe unions from other cultures, religious or otherwise, doesn't make it "marriage" as it is used to in US law.


To argue the symmantecs of the term 'marriage' itself I beleive is moot. In Christianity, a Marriage may mean a sacred bond between a Man and a Woman. In other religions, it may mean a sacred bond between a Man and several Women. If you have your own beleifs, than you can define marriage however you wish.

Unfortunately what happens around the world doesn't matter. The US is predominently christian and so goes the concept of what "marriage" is. To effect change you have to recognize the context in which your dealing. To ignore this plays right into loosing battle I speak of.


I have several friends who are not able to insure their life parteners, so I have a tendancy not to agree that this is 'good enough'.

No one ever said it was. Agreed.


I don't think you can say never. And I wouldnt agree that it's a loosing proposition, as I simply don't agree that any group has a right to the definition of what 'marriage' is. And, I wouldn't really be willing to give up that definition.

Unfortunately the actual term "marriage" is lodged deep in judio christian history. But, more practically speaking, most the of US has the same definition of "marriage" as well. It s fine if you choose to have another definition of the term...but you'll just be out of context, and therefore, inefffective (just as everyone else looking for gay "marriage" to be widely)recognized.

I suppose you have to ask yourself what is more important...having gay unions receive the legal equality they deserve, or arguing fruitlessly on principal. There are many gays out there that wish the radical left would calm down the rhetoric a bit and work smarter by attacking civil liberty issues and civil union rights head on without the religious overtones.



Don't agree that anyone can claim it will fail or not.

Has it worked yet?

Better yet, have you not seen the major set backs in the last year thanks to the over zealous activist judges? All these guys did was create a public backlash that was proven out by the Nov 2 elections.

Again, everyone has to decide whether tangible positive gains under civil union law or worth sacrificing over the principal of having to be thought of as "married".

[Let the zoophiles have their own battle

Ahh, the traditional duck and run. This is the usual response from those that want rights, but don't want to deal with the can of worms they open in doing so. Typical, but I forgive you:)

Again, by running away from really defining what a civil union should be, credibility is lost. New civil union law must be forged and its tough work. Everything must be considered.


I argue that marriage can't simple be synonymous with civil union.

Ah-ha....I agree. They are completely distinct issues in American context


The polygamists can have their own battle as well

Again, another duck and run.

Addressing the civil liberty issues that are only important to you while leaving gaping holes in the law is yet again a losing argument. These questions need to be answered before you expect lawmakers and judges to be able to change much at all.


Nope, I have my reasons and haven't confused anything

Well, good luck chasing your victory on principal. If you ever pop over to where the real work is being done protecting and expanding civil union rights (you know, the stuff that makes a difference in the real lives of people today) stop by and say hey. I respect your position. I only ask that you consider just how poorly things have gone in the last 12 months alone for the "gay marriage" arguement.


I'm not sure anyone has legally challenged the definition of marriage. People seem more concerned with blocking the civil unions rather than worrying about the symmantecs of the definition, from a legal aspect.

I don't think I could disagree with this any more than I do.

I only ask that you look around into civil union action groups and see what I mean. There are many many gay people working feverishly to seperate themselves from the word "marriage" as they persue better civil union rights.

One should also bear in mind that several of the "anti-gay marriage" ballot initiatives recently passed did not only ban gay marrigage, but any extension of other civil partnership rights to gays.

This is exactly the backlash I speak of. The "real" door has just been pushed further closed thanks to activist judges trying to push the envelope. The US isn't ready for gay marriage...its that simple. But, the keen will undrestand that pushing civil union reforms is the way to get the "toe" in the door.

[quote]Oh, and various sects of Christianity have recognised marriage as a bond between one man and several women.

If this is true, then shouldn't we allow >2 civil union protection too? This is the question Tom ran away from.


Mike - you might also be interested in perusing the following document from the General Accounting Office's Office of General Council, which sets out the 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is known to be a factor:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf


The document clearly says that these laws may not create benefits, rights, and privelidges.

So what's the point. Drawing only a "distinction" is not inherently good nor bad.


On the subject of inheritance and wills, whilst it is true that a properly drawn-up will cannot be overturned, there are still important differences in how inheritance is taxed dependant on marital status. You get tax breaks for being married.

No, not under inheritance tax.

The unified life time exclusion for married people is exactly double that of the single person. So no break there.

The "death tax" table is applied individually, not to a married couple.

If you consider that the lifetime exclusion from an individual's taxable estate is $ 1.5 MILLION, its hard to cry over anyone who has to pay inheritence tax anyway.

The only real benefit to being married when it comes to estate taxes is that you have more planning opportunites when you have 2 people.

If you ignore the estate tax and look at just income taxes, it is only just recentl that the marriage PENALTY was eliminated from the code. Until just recently, a married couple paid higher effective tax rates (eg the brackets jumped to the next higher bracket on joint taxable income sooner than on individual taxable income).

When you get down to it, the only real "tax breaks" married people get are breaks they have for having a family...that has hardly nothing to do with being married...such as child credits and dependency exemptions.

I'd just drop the tax thing...you won't find the arguement there. Where you will find it is in general family law under civil unions. That's were the inequality lies.

Peace:)

[Gabriel]

man this is the best board to lurk

:)

back with a vengeance mike

[spldart]

"Bushheads" ?!?!

I find this post offensive.

[Player0]

I guess I could call them Dickheads, what with Cheney and all ;)

[Nettik]

I do not get people, swear on a roasted peice of beef that you must be retarded to by all means use everything in the consitution and government documents to defend your argument, but not mention the forteenth amendment. Holy sh!t, it says all are equal. Are you going to read documents and facts to us over and over again? Gay people do not interfere with your life, so you want to interfere with theirs?

Actually I have a great idea! How about we attach taser units onto children, and adults, so whenever they say "fuk" than they get the crap shocked out of them. You know since who gives a damn about freedom of expression. I would vote for it! Hell yeah maybe we would have a lot less picks ;) taking away other peoples rights.

:Nettik

[mdzcpa]

I do not get people, swear on a roasted peice of beef that you must be retarded to by all means use everything in the consitution and government documents to defend your argument, but not mention the forteenth amendment.

:wtf: are you talking about?

In fact, there is no argument nor debate in the thread about the basic premise....and that is that civil union inequalities exist. And that the basis for identifiying the inequalities and correcting them lay in basic civil rights law.

Unfortunately the fourteenth amendment (notice the spelling of fourteenth amendment btw) is NOT the foundation of the argument at all. If you were a better student of civil rights, you'd know that being "married" or having any other civil union recognized by the government is NOT a constitutionally protected RIGHT. It is something that is GRANTED by the individual states. This is why it requires a license. This is civil rights 101 :rolleyes:

I suggest you do some research into civil rights law before you call others "retarded" and continue to embarrass yourself any further.

[dicki]

good to see your still around mike :)

i'm afraid i can't comment on american laws / constitutions (they arn't the same as laws are they???) but i can comment on this in a general way :)

many laws in many countries are unequal, they often favour one group over another ( on grounds of sex, marital status etc etc ) and i firmly believe that *origionally* these unequal laws were introduced for a good reason *because people are not equal* some are fitter, stronger, richer, or whatever than others so each group of differing abilities / social standing recieved differential treatment to try to make things more fair.

however in this day in age social groups are changing faster than laws can possibly adjust and people are more "equal" than they have been at any point in the past also they are better informed so they can point to a problem and make one hell of a fuss when they see it...

i am of the opinion that really what this needs is simply time to allow due process and sensible thinking to gradually make all laws equal regardless of any kind of social group / sex / marital status. people signing petitions is also good to help focus the attention on the issue of the moment but i cannot see how any sensible society can possibly deny the need to balance out these laws in the society we live in.

dicki

[Gregorach]

But wasn't the Fourteenth Amendment the basis for overturning state-level Jim Crow laws back in the '60s? My reading may be incorrect, but as I understand it, the "equal protection" bit ("No state shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") means that no state has the right to make a law which denies the "protection of the laws" (e.g. the recognition of a civil union, or protection of voting rights) to any arbitrary group or person. To state that civil unions, whilst having legal force and conferring legal benefits, cannot be entered into by gays or lesbians, is to deny equal protection of the law to these people.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Living in a country without a written constitution, I find these matters both fascinating and confusing in approximately equal proportions... ;)

[Player0]

To try and use any current federal law to encompass any sort of civil union, even straight marriage, is really a stretch.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I know the Declaration is hardly a legal mantra as well. But it gives a groundwork for 'founder intent'. How you can define any of this is a complete mystery. All men (lets say human beings) start off equal...at what point can they become different? Puberty? When they commit a crime? "certain unalienable rights?" What are those? Human Rights. The US recognizes at least basic human rights. That is the intent. Pursuit of happiness. Again, an organisms happiness is created when it's basic needs are fulfilled. Food, air, mating, etc. I mean, all those feel good right?

Human rights and the basic needs of the human organism are really the same thing. I think taking a life partener IS a basic human right. Most humans need a life companion. Most religions dictate the rules of what that should be. But by mandating rules regarding who you take as a mate is stepping on human rights. I truely beleive that, no matter who wants to argue over it.

No laws really exist to protect this human right, which is why some powers that be in the country have the opportunity to move on it and try to form the laws the way they see fit. You cant trust the states to make the 'fair' decision regarding human rights. Look at slavery, etc. It needs to be a federally protected right, and that requires at least a supreme court ruling, and better yet, a constitutional amendment.

Neither of which are happening anytime soon, but there will be steps in some direction.