That definition is actually not a definition that the same people who consider it the default definition can stand on for a couple minutes. I’ve still got to meet one who says out loud and without choking that polygamous marriages aren’t marriages or that two people beyond procreation age shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The “feeling” of what marriage means and the “definition” of marriage are two different animals.
I’ve said it before, so my apologies to those who’re sick of hearing it, but in other languages and legal systems we don’t have “civil unions” and we do have two kinds of marriage: “religious marriage” and “civil marriage,” where neither implies the other and the rights and duties involved in both are different. We definitely do not call it a “civil partnership,” “civil union” or “civil joint account.”
Based on your above post, this thread is probably particularly topical for you. magellan01 did us the honors of taking the protection of the definition of the word marriage to new heights.
It is an odd one, as it can only damage proponents of marriage per se, not people who espouse (heh) marriage between either same-sex or opposite-sex couples. If it costs that much to support the partners of your gay employees, how the hell do you cope with your straight employees’ partnerships?
@Stink Fish Pot: I think your question is valid, and I understand you asking it, but I think it’s better that you either start a new thread or respond to the other threads about why gay people want marriage rather than civil unions. I know (really) that you were just expressing your curiosity by rephrasing the question here, but it’s kinda like reading a thread about why Florida is generally humid and asking why the Milky Way is said to be a spiral galaxy.
Nope. The problem many people have is their irrational hatred and fear of homosexuals, and their desire to use any tool at their disposal to retain the right to legally discriminate against something they don’t like.
Balderdash. The definitions of all words are fluid, evolving to maintain relevence with changing times and circumstances. Definitions that don’t evolve will doom words to death by disuse or substitution. It’s not the redefinition of the word marriage these people have a problem with, it’s who it’s being redefined to include.
I know folks here are becoming tired of all the rehashery on this topic but, to repeat myself from another thread, this is nothing but another justification for the application of ‘separate but equal.’ It was wrong during the struggle for civil rights by blacks in the '60s, and it’s just as bloody wrong in this case.
Of course if you’re predisposed not to consider an act discriminatory you won’t recognize it as such when it’s presented. Until the 1967 victory in the Loving case, one of the rationalizations for the prohibition of blacks marrying whites [see: anti-miscegenation laws] was that it was immoral and unnatural, thereby dismissing any and all cries of discrimination.
Also, discrimination doesn’t necessarily have to be in-your-face to be just as harmful and real as a physical confrontation or altercation.
I’m not sure what all is included in your “this”, but I’ll take a stab at it for Canada.
Since 2005, there has been same-sex marriage uniformly across Canada, as a result of the federal Civil Marriage Act. As a general rule, people in a same-sex marriage get the same rights as those in an opposite-sex marriage.
Health care is covered by our medicare system, not by employers, so a person’s access to health care is not affected in any way by marital status.
A lot of employers offer “top up” benefits for their employees, to pay for things that aren’t included in medicare, like prescription drugs and dentistry. Same-sex married couples get the same benefits as opposite-sex couples - if an employer refused to provide them, the employer would likely be named in a human rights complaint, since sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under both federal and provincial law.
When the push was on in the mid-90s to recognize same-sex couples for employment benefits, I saw numbers which indicated that adding same-sex couples to the employers’ benefit plans would increase the employer’s costs by between 0.5% and 1.5% (no online cite, sorry; this was pre-internet…). By contrast, most employers had expanded their plans to include opposite-sex common law couples in the late 70s or early 80s, and doing so increased the cost of the plans by between 15% to 20%. Since they had done that voluntarily, it was hard to argue that the possible 1.5% increase for same-sex couples was an undue burden.
If you have any other questions about this issue in Canada, I’d be pleased to try to answer them.
You know, that’s a good point. I also find it unbelievable sleezy that they’re openly, admitedly, “recasting” their argument to appeal to people’s pocketbooks, because all their prior arguments, frankly, fuckin’ suck. Good god, you miscreants-- you’re talking about people’s basic human dignity here. It’s doubly sick that a black man would do this after the institutionalized injustices blacks suffered in this country *in his lifetime. *
I find this odd, since if I add my husband to my insurance, my premium goes up accordingly. Adding people to your health care plan is not free where I work. In fact, it’s quite expensive, double what it is if you’re single. Is this not how most people’s plans work?
It’s the way my husband’s plan works. As I recall, his company charges him ac ertain amount per month because I can get health insurance through my employer but use his instead. However, my company pays me double that because I’m not using their health insurance. As the saying goes, Step 3: Profit!
I keep hearing that the Republican Party is the keeper of traditional, Christian values, especially when it comes to issues like gay marriage and abortion. Why is it, then, they keep implementing policies to help the rich get richer while not caring for the poor? Why is such a high value set on money? To me, this is yet more evidence that the Republican party as it now stands is morally bankrupt.
If you pay anything less than 100% of the insurance cost, adding more people costs the business more money. As far as I know most any businesses pays a large majority of the insurance premium.
For instance, you pay $80 a month toward a policy that costs $600 a month. You add a spouse and start paying $160 a month toward a policy that costs $1100 a month.
This is the biggest reason why most Republicans get on my nerves. Most Republicans are big-time Christians, who are supposed to be all about the poor and meek, but it seems they are the first to complain about “welfare leeches” and “lazy bums” taking their money.
And after the horrible poor people, they fixate on killing all the terrorists and everyone who looks like a terrorist. Oh yeah, you better not touch my gun. 'Cuz if the terrorists come into my backyard, I have the right to kill them!
Jesus said not a word about homosexuality or abortion, but he did say plenty about loving both poor people and your enemies. I can’t figure out how Christian Republicans are able to spout their ideas without their heads exploding.
Good clarification – many people forget that employers customarily pick up the lion’s share of group insurance.
However, the line would be, not who pays for insurance, but equality of access. If a company offers no group insurance as a fringe benefit, as some few do, then there is no issue. But if John can include Mary and their kids (natural, step- or adopted) on his insurance, then Adam should be able to include Steve and their kids (natural, step- or adopted) on his. If the law provides that Mary is entitled to the home she shared with the late John and half his estate, then Steve should be entitled to the same share of the late Adam’s estate – not have it go to the parents and siblings who may have ostracized him in life for being gay. (There are numerous case histories of this.)
Stink Fish Pot, marriage is not for the purpose of ensuring progeny, though that is one common element of it. This has been argued at length, but can be again. As half of a heterosexual marriage that is biologically childless, but which is highly meaningful and fulfilling and has I believe done some good in this world, this is a very hot button issue for me. Open a thread if you care to debate it, please.
Except that the definition has been several different things, including one man giving his property to another man, and two families uniting either politically or in terms of land claims (and sometimes both). So that really isn’t true.
Absolutely. I wasn’t suggesting for a moment that it’s ok to deny people equal rights so long as it saves small businesses money and a lot of Americans don’t like that type of person.
I just meant that from a purely financial perspective, I can understand the GOP’s new anti-family anti-marriage rhetoric. I just don`t understand why they’re applying it only to gays. Being anti-family and anti-marriage makes as much financial sense for opposite couples as same sex couples. More even, since opposite marriages are so much more likely to yield anti-small-business babies.
Five years ago today, same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. Five years ago today, I filed my intention to marry. With all the arguing that we’ve seen on this matter (mostly one sided on this board already), I point out that when we went to City Hall to file late on that Monday afternoon (we were the last couple to register in Cambridge that historic first day), the support of our straight neighbors was exceedingly high. The ladies at City Hall worked at Midnight to process intention to marry applications, then worked all day as they regularly would. When we showed up they were still positively beaming. When we exited City Hall we were greeted by applause from absolute strangers and given flowers by random people. On the subway home we received well wishes and congratulations from more strangers. This is the Northeast! We don’t talk to strangers!
I’m not so naive to expect this everywhere in the USA. Massachusetts is an exception; Cambridge even more so, but the attitudes here have shifted with great speed. Even marriage opponent politicians in adjacent states (Go New England!) have approached the issue with an open and fair mind. And that is what is making all the difference.
As most here have realized, there is no rational argument against same sex marriage. Current arguments either try to impose religion on the masses or covet marriage as something meant to make themselves feel extra-super-special.
For us, our marriage was no big deal; we had been together for a decade already. It made no impact on day-to-day stuff. But the right to get married is of great significance ‘under the hood’. Most of the rights we have gained we hopefully will never need; but it is important they are there in case of emergency.
At the time of our marriage, if I joined my husband’s plan we would have to pay money. If he joined mine, we didn’t have to pay anything. Of course this was all moot since he was already on my plan since my employer offered domestic partner benefits. A weird quirk of the Massachusetts same-sex marriage law is that many companies (including mine) dropped domestic partner benefits as a result. Several couples in my company were affected, all of them straight. Same sex marriage might have saved my company (a small business) some money because of this.
You have a nice plan there. I pay a lot more than $80/month towards my plan, but you’re right, my employer pays the rest. However, when I have a kid, no one will say a peep about it costing my employer money to add the child to the plan, because that’s a person they can get behind, right?
One slightly more reasonable argument I’ve heard is that, if same sex marriage is legalized, a lot of heterosexuals will marry their same-sex friends or roommates purely for the sake of health insurance and/or a tax break.
Of course, never in the history of humankind has a man married a woman, or vice versa, strictly for financial gain. :rolleyes:
We have to protect marriage at all costs. Of course more than 50 percent of them end up in divorce,those ones don’t count. Then if we could measure the misery index in many of the others, we would wonder what it is we are protecting. The idea that a kid needs both a mother and father to thrive is unproven. But kids with divorced or miserable parents do suffer a lot.
It is so easy to jump on the family unit as a goal and the best way to raise kids. But it may not be true. A gay marriage might have great results for adopted kids. That remains to be proven over a long term. But I am not convinced a gay family can not raise a family as well as most hetero marriages do.
Because “Christ” has not much more to do with “Christianity” than Mickey Mouse has to do with Disney corporate policy; they are trademarks and icons and advertising tools, but that’s it.
