Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-04-2005, 12:48 PM   #1 (permalink)
Crazy
 
New York's same-sex marriage ban struck down

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...span-headlines
CShine is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 12:53 PM   #2 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
This is the best news I've heard all day. For weeks, really. Thank you, New York.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 12:57 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by CShine
Looks like this is an issue that just isn't going to go away. Is it possible for the country to come to an agreeable resolution of the whole same-sex marriage flap?
No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges. As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.

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

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 12:57 PM   #4 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
And thus....we have my reasoning for living in NY.
It sure ain't the freakin' weather.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:01 PM   #5 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.
You do realize just how these types of statements make you look......don't you?
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:02 PM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges. As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.

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

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


And how does allowing them to marry "force their beliefs on the rest of the population"? Seems to me that our open acknowledgement of their right to be "perverts," as you put it, has led to their beliefs being a regular part of what we see, read, and talk about, even if the marriage question had never come along. Gay beliefs are already widely-discussed in America. How does legalizing same-sex marriage "force their beliefs" on the rest of us when their beliefs are already out there for everyone to see. If two guys get married, how does that force anything on YOU?
CShine is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:07 PM   #7 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
I've been saying for a long time that the best way to solve this problem is to make civil-unions cool for any two human beings, and take away tax benefits for ALL couples. Us single people have been screwed long enough!
Just using the term marriage is what started the whole problem. Dont take the word for a sacrament and make it the same word for something else... thats just like poking the religious crazies with a stick.
 
Old 02-04-2005, 01:09 PM   #8 (permalink)
Crazy
 
thinktank wrote:

Quote:
and take away tax benefits for ALL couples

Like that's ever going to even have a chance of making it through Congress.
CShine is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:10 PM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
And thus....we have my reasoning for living in NY.
It sure ain't the freakin' weather.
Hahahaha.

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

Now how to give you our weather....
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:28 PM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.
C'mon daswig, you're baiting us.....I hope. On the slim chance that you are
serious, you diminish only your own stature with your intolerant rhetoric, but I'm
sure that you know that! The state has nothing to gain by introducing
restrictions on the ways adults physically express their affection for each other,
and much to gain by not interfering with the intent of any adult couple to
form a legally recognized, civil union.
host is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:31 PM   #11 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Quote:
Originally Posted by CShine
And how does allowing them to marry "force their beliefs on the rest of the population"? Seems to me that our open acknowledgement of their right to be "perverts," as you put it, has led to their beliefs being a regular part of what we see, read, and talk about, even if the marriage question had never come along. Gay beliefs are already widely-discussed in America. How does legalizing same-sex marriage "force their beliefs" on the rest of us when their beliefs are already out there for everyone to see. If two guys get married, how does that force anything on YOU?

I'll take this one.

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

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

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

I could go on and on, but you catch my drift. Look, I'm not opposed to having safeguards in place for life partners when it comes to hospital visits, estate issues, ect.. Most people aren't. The fact that this would change thousands of years of Western culture bothers me. Most people really do not think through this issue and thus dismiss prematuraly; saying why do people oppose something that won't affect their own lives.
NCB is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:34 PM   #12 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
Maybe I just dont understand the associated legislation well enough, but really, how can legal civil unions do harm to anyone? They wouldnt raise taxes at all, right? If anything it wouldnt it just bring in more income for the state through more marriage licenses? Or am i wrong, is there something underlying that I'm missing?
 
Old 02-04-2005, 01:43 PM   #13 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
I'll take this one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Willravel; 02-04-2005 at 02:31 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:46 PM   #14 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
Once gay marriage is legitimized through the public arena (ie, the govt), everything associated with it will be shoved down our throats. It'll start in the public school system with sex ed. They'll be teaching about gay sex to our kids.
That is a question for your local school board. They have the power right now to choose their curriculum and authorizing gay marriage will not change that power one iota. A local school board can teach gay sex right now if they want. Changing marriage law does not force anything on local school boards in any way. Each locality would still retain complete authority over what it teaches. Frankly, your comment above amounts to nothing but scare-mongering tactics.

Quote:
Next, will be the churches. You think it's gonna sit well with the gay intifada that some churches will not permit them to marry in their particular church? And with the legitimization from the govt, the churched won't have too much to stand on.
They'll have the 1st Amendment to stand on. No church has EVER been forced to marry anyone. That will not change.

Quote:
Then of course will come the change in Title VII, which will now include sexual orientation and thus, even more lawsuits.
Changing marriage law is does not change Title VII.

Last edited by CShine; 02-04-2005 at 01:49 PM..
CShine is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 01:55 PM   #15 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Hahahaha.

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

Now how to give you our weather....

Born and Raised in San Diego....been there, done that.
tecoyah asks someone to remind him why he actuallt DID move to NY
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:00 PM   #16 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.
That and the "Gay Intifada"...

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

Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:05 PM   #17 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.
Cheers to that, friend. We're all in this together no matter how we choose to live.
 
Old 02-04-2005, 02:06 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.
The only reason a constitutional amendment was brought up last year was to get naive social conservatives on the gwb bandwagon. Notice how all mention of a constitutional amendment has dissappeared.
filtherton is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:08 PM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
sixate's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
OK, maybe I'm the stupid one, but didn't this go up for vote and the people already decided? Aren't we, the people, the ones who decide what is constitutional, then our government act accordingly to what the people vote for? That's how it's supposed to work, right? The people spoke, and spoke overwhelmingly as to what they want. Our government is supposed to listen. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this bullshit.

Here's a news flash people. Everyone is not equal, never have been, and never will be. I'm not treated as well as a married couple so maybe I should bitch and whine and cry and sue so I can get tax breaks without being married or having kids......... Now, does anyone else see why this is complete fucking horeshit?
sixate is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:16 PM   #20 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
um...i have no idea how the above is relevant.
look, this is an equal protection issue. period. the right knows that, if the matter is allowed to stay framed on these grounds, they will loose every time. and it puts them in a bad place. so what you get instead is crap left over from the christian coalitions mobilizations against proposition 2 in colorado (i think) about "special rights"--which is idiotic--and then a newer, more vile stream of simple bigotry wrapped up as a defense of tradition. with a little dollop of persecution complex thrown in for good measure.

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

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

the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:21 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
The state has nothing to gain by introducing
restrictions on the ways adults physically express their affection for each other,
and much to gain by not interfering with the intent of any adult couple to
form a legally recognized, civil union.
what possible state gain is there for a "legally recognized civil union"? And how does a "legally recognized civil union" differ from a MARRIAGE?
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:23 PM   #22 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
The only reason a constitutional amendment was brought up last year was to get naive social conservatives on the gwb bandwagon. Notice how all mention of a constitutional amendment has dissappeared.
It has? That's NOT what I'm hearing, and judging by the fact that 11 out of 11 states that held referendums on gay marriage (including Washington State, which ios as Left Coast Liberal as you can get) went AGAINST it, often by HUGE margins, it has a decent chance of passsage.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:25 PM   #23 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
what possible state gain is there for a "legally recognized civil union"? And how does a "legally recognized civil union" differ from a MARRIAGE?
Marriage is in a church... it's a sacrament. From the stuff you've been saying i would have figured you knew that. The other, is for two people like me and my fiance who dont believe in God, but still want to commit to eachother and to get better financial aide for school and the tax break.
 
Old 02-04-2005, 02:28 PM   #24 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud.
just as irrelevant as the post before yours. no one is trying to dictate who can love another person. the issue is a a legal one, it's about changing the definitions of marriage in a legal sense. do you really think state's have put issues concerning personal feelings toward another person on the ballot? surely not.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:32 PM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.
Anybody here who does NOT think that they're a pervert is suspect. I'm a heterosexual male in a 10+ year long monogamous relationship with my wife, and guess what? I'm a pervert. I enjoy sexual acts with my wife which could get me arrested in the State that I live in if performed outside of the bedroom, despite the fact that we're married. I'm sure that if I went into my personal kinks with my neighbors, I'd get a whole lot of "Ewwwwww!!!!" as a response.

I don't CARE who you love, or how you love them, or what other fetishes or whatever you're into (and YES, EVERYBODY has SOME kind of fetish unless they're dead). Hell, if your spouse dies and leaves you their body for your necropheliac tendencies, hey, that's just dandy in my book. You into Bukkake? No problem. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. But taking your personal perversions PUBLIC and demanding recognition for them is entirely another matter.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:37 PM   #26 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinktank
Marriage is in a church... it's a sacrament. From the stuff you've been saying i would have figured you knew that. The other, is for two people like me and my fiance who dont believe in God, but still want to commit to eachother and to get better financial aide for school and the tax break.

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

You want better financial aid and tax breaks? Fine. Work for them. But don't try to codify your lifestyle.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:37 PM   #27 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixate
OK, maybe I'm the stupid one, but didn't this go up for vote and the people already decided? Aren't we, the people, the ones who decide what is constitutional, then our government act accordingly to what the people vote for? That's how it's supposed to work, right? The people spoke, and spoke overwhelmingly as to what they want. Our government is supposed to listen. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this bullshit.

Here's a news flash people. Everyone is not equal, never have been, and never will be. I'm not treated as well as a married couple so maybe I should bitch and whine and cry and sue so I can get tax breaks without being married or having kids......... Now, does anyone else see why this is complete fucking horeshit?
Maybe we should take away your right to have sex with women. Then let's see you "bitch and whine and cry and sue". Let's take away your freedom to marry, and take away your freedom to love. Let's say "the world isn't fair, and there's nothing we can do about it" as we slowly die away.

-OR- we can be brave in the face of something we may not understand and say "I will do everything I possibly can to make sure that the law sees all people as being equal, whether I like it or not". I say it's horseshit to let bigoted people try to impose their small beliefs on other people.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:42 PM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinktank
Maybe I just dont understand the associated legislation well enough, but really, how can legal civil unions do harm to anyone?
It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:43 PM   #29 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
But don't try to codify your lifestyle.
Hmm? I thought codify meant something similar to arrange/organize...?
Also... never said i supported gay marriage... i suggested no marriage, remember? CIVIL UNION... as in living with someone, property rights, and all that... nothing about it happening in a church. the Church is your problem, i leave those places alone.
 
Old 02-04-2005, 02:44 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I say it's horseshit to let bigoted people try to impose their small beliefs on other people.
That doesn't seem to stop you from trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of us, does it?

Man, that shoe sure does pinch when it's on the other foot, don't it?
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:45 PM   #31 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.
I need some specifics though, because as of right now, i've seen nothing factual as far as negative effects on me. Please explain, I'm honestly curious. My stance as of now is the fact that i dont think it'll do anything that effects me, which is why i support it. If it's what someone wants and it doesnt hurt me, why would i care?
 
Old 02-04-2005, 02:46 PM   #32 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinktank
Hmm? I thought codify meant something similar to arrange/organize...?
Also... never said i supported gay marriage... i suggested no marriage, remember? CIVIL UNION... as in living with someone, property rights, and all that... nothing about it happening in a church. the Church is your problem, i leave those places alone.
Codify = introducing into the legal code, seeking to give a statutory base to a particular viewpoint.

What rights are you currently denied that cannot be gained by simple, straightforward contract law?
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:47 PM   #33 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.
What harm do those worms bring? Legal equlity just seems like it'd be worth the small trouble (lawsuits) that might come with it. Heterosexual marriages bring plenty of lawsuits, but no one is trying to have heterosexual marriages banned. The worst thing that might happen if they are found to have equal legal standing is the uproar from bigots, and not making a law simply to protect people from bigots seems extremly wrong.

Last edited by Willravel; 02-04-2005 at 02:49 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:47 PM   #34 (permalink)
thinktank
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Codify = introducing into the legal code, seeking to give a statutory base to a particular viewpoint.

What rights are you currently denied that cannot be gained by simple, straightforward contract law?
Whoa, i'm straight. This isnt about me personally, i'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
 
Old 02-04-2005, 02:50 PM   #35 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinktank
I need some specifics though, because as of right now, i've seen nothing factual as far as negative effects on me. Please explain, I'm honestly curious. My stance as of now is the fact that i dont think it'll do anything that effects me, which is why i support it. If it's what someone wants and it doesnt hurt me, why would i care?

I think it all comes down to the difference between tolerance and open acceptance as "normal". You do understand the difference, yes?
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 02:55 PM   #36 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinktank
Whoa, i'm straight. This isnt about me personally, i'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Your sexual orientation is immaterial. What can't gay couples gain through standard contract law rather than legalization of "civil unions"?
daswig is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 03:07 PM   #37 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Your sexual orientation is immaterial. What can't gay couples gain through standard contract law rather than legalization of "civil unions"?
visitation rights in hospitals don't usually allow for such contracts, or family can override them.

adoption rights don't often work otherwise.

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

the list goes on.

oh, and some states are trying to ban contracts that would approximate civil partnership.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 03:17 PM   #38 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
It is a Rarity

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

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

I do hope this is understood.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 03:26 PM   #39 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
What can't strait couples gain through a standard contract law rather than a civil union? Whats the point of marriage if there's no point to marriage? There are plenty of things they cant get w/o being recognized as a civil union. Tax breaks, financial aid.. etc.. these have ben mentioned by previous posters.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 03:27 PM   #40 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
It has? That's NOT what I'm hearing, and judging by the fact that 11 out of 11 states that held referendums on gay marriage (including Washington State, which ios as Left Coast Liberal as you can get) went AGAINST it, often by HUGE margins, it has a decent chance of passsage.
We're talking about the u.s. constitution here, not state referendums.
filtherton is offline  
 

Tags
ban, marriage, samesex, struck, york

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:37 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360