OTOH, it is not hard to defend current practice on the grounds that “found a family” implies (to a great many people) the ability for the spouses to procreate between them. If we dance the “original authors” waltz that is so often played in discussions of the U.S. Constitution, it is going to be hard to argue that there was any intent in 1948 to recognize as family all of the various permutations that we have seen in Western society in the last 30 years.
(And, of course, if the U.N. wanted to levy sanctions against the U.S., they’d have to wait until we paid our multiple-year withheld dues before they could organize such an event.)
I think we should hammer out the issues in the U.S. before we start worrying about whether the foreign community is going to think poorly of us.
I was thinking about this today, along with the potential argument that the right is in there just so that people can be free to raise a family. I hate to make comparisons, but (sigh here we go) if we can split the 2nd amendment so that it makes the right to bear arms legal without any sort of organized militia, then we can look at this the same way - in other words, the right to marry and the right to raise a family are just two seperate but related rights. Perhaps that’s not what the UN members intended to allow when they wrote that, but that’s what it is, and I’m glad that it’s there.
I wasn’t actually expecting anyone to point this out to the UN, or for them to do anything about it, I was just making my point. Which countries currently legalize gay marriage, BTW? I’d be curious to know if someone’s compiled a list somewhere.
I did some 'net research on that a couple months back, so I’m reposting it for those who may be interested. Things may have changed in the meantime, though.
It appears as if the closest one can get to a gay marriage truly equivalent to a heterosexual marriage is Hungary’s common-law marriage.
I’ve got another point - same-sex benefits are good for business. For a relatively small amount of money (in both the cost of the benefit and the small number of people who would actually take advantage of it, unless your business is in West Hollywood), a company can get back a happier employee, which means better productivity, company loyalty, less turnover, etc., ad nauseum.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Just a guess, but I would imagine that there the percentage of gay homemakers is much smaller than the percentage of stay-at-home heterosexuals, partly because they are less likely to be parents, and also because there aren’t any pre-existing stereotypes about one spouse supporting the other.
If you can somehow manage to get your lawnmower to say I do and vow to love, honor, and obey you for as long as you both shall live go for it. Until then stick withe people no matter what sex they are because they are perfectly capable of dedicating thier life to you.
No, we don’t accept everything. Many of us take umbrage at:
[ul][li]People who feel that the way they want to live is the way everyone should live[/li][li]People who show off by repeating their handle after eleven asterisks and therefore make a misshapen page.[/ul][/li]Any more questions?
One of the big issues regarding marriage is the virtual impossibility and expense of trying to get personal medical insurance if you can’t get it through your employer.
As a long-time contract programmer, I have to pay double what even a small company would pay, and I don’t get to write it off (I get paid on a W-2 as a temporary employee). Any my insurer (Kaiser Permanente of Colorado) would deny me coverage if I were offered any insurance, even of the lowest quality.
The benefits of marriage are few. Access to medical coverage (which certainly even the most die-hard liberatian should support), the ability to inherit property without confiscatory taxation, the various powers of attorney. Marriage certainly does not offer a tax advantage when both spouses work, and only a minor one when one spouse does not work.
I agree with meara: The government should stay out of the marriage business (which is a religious institution), and stay in the civil contract enforcement business.
The government should also support equal access to health insurance regardless of employment or marital status.
In my own circumstances, I have to take advantage of all the loopholes in the system to provide ordinary medical care for my family (my family life makes a gay marriage with adopted children look mundane). If you want the details, e-mail me.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
But since many, many employers are starting to offer same-sex benefits without same-sex marriages being yet legal, this is becoming less and less of a problem.
Actually, the Goverment Accounting Office identified 1,049 marriage-affected benefits (some positive, some negative) when asked by the Senate to do so, so “few” isn’t a word I’d use. This has been discussed in detail in the BBQ Pit.
These reasons alone are an argument for the legality of same-sex marriages.
Actually, after reading some of these threads, I’m starting to think the civil institution of marriage should be replaced completely with a series of legal contracts!
Amen!
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
They use “benefits” simply as “things afford to married couples;” whether or not they actually “benefit” you is another story, and the report says as much.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of the one true God, although I suppose it was a necessary evil in its time. It is founded on possessiveness, obligation, and restriction.
It should have no legal recognition. It is a religious institution. People from misguided religions should have the right to continue to practice it – after all, it is a free country.
However, there is no excuse for the government honoring this religious institution and imposing it as the default structuring of ongoing love and sexual relationships.
Well, Proposition 22 in California passed - marriage there is now defined as between one man and one woman, and if any other state someday legalizes same-sex marriages, California will not recognize that marriage (unless and until the Defense of Marriage Act is declared unconstitutional, which is most likely will).
However, there seemed to be a majority of Californians in favor of a state-wide domestic partnership law.
Thoughts? Me, I’m disappointed, but realize the fight isn’t over.
I had a thought last night, based on all the various conversations happening on the boards these days.
Is it possible that domestic partnerships, as defined by some cities, actually afford all, most or some the advantages of marriage (i.e., visitation rights, property ownership, etc.) without any, most or many of the disadvantages (i.e., ‘marriage tax,’ etc.)?
If it were the case, hey, I’d take a DP over a marriage any day! Talk about your special rights!
Thoughts? I’ll go look up Philadelphia’s DP benefits program and see what it looks like.
Well, I poked around and found some information on Philadelphia’s Domestic Partnership Ordinance.
Domestic Partnership benefits were granted by Mayor Rendell (how I miss him so) as an Executive Order on June 7, 1996. Much hoo-haing ensued, particularly by the City Board of Commissioners, who grumbled about him not having the authority to do so, but, IIRC, the Board voted and it passed anyway. The Order was expanded to include a Domestic Partnership Registry on May 7, 1998, covering “city workers and homeowners.”
I also found this from the City of Philadelphia Commission of Human Relations (www.phila.gov) dated 2/3/00:
An optional Certificate of Life Partnership is available for $10, but it does not state how much it costs to actually register.
So there are some interesting differences between DP’s and marriages:
[ul][li]Opposite-sex couples do not have to provide proof of interdependency before getting their marriage license, nor sign any statements; I’m assuming they still need to present valid ID and have a blood test, but AFAIK they don’t have to provide proof of common property, common residency, common finances, etc. - all of that is automatically provided to them after they get the marriage license.[/li][li]This particular DP grants one tax break, health benefits, pension beneficiary, and protects from discrimination. That’s it - 3 very specific items. Granted, they’re all good things, but it’s a far cry from equality.[/li][li]I do not know how a DP registry would hold up in court regarding things like hospital visitation rights, property ownership, etc. - that kind of stuff seems to be left up to the couple to handle themselves, as evidenced by the list of things they could proffer as proof of commitment.[/ul][/li]
Huh. Quite a disparity, IMHO.
meara
For some reason the thread you gave a link to (at the bottom of page 2 of this thread) is no longer on LBBB. I wonder what could have happened to it. :rolleyes:
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix
These words are mine and they are true - Chief Meninock
I’m bumping this one up, too, because it came up in another thread.
I have a specific question for Flinx:
Since we all know you would vote against same-sex marriages if it were on a ballot, and you’ve also stated that you do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against, would you vote for a bill that introduced a legally equal domestic partnership bill? Is it just the word “marriage” that you object to?
I don’t think this was ever clearly answered anywhere else in this thread.
