Come on Ralph…you are joking right?
This is a hijack to an earlier piece of the thread. When my husband and I applied for a loan for a house, we did so as a married couple. That didn’t go very far with the loan companies, but we gave it a try as a piece of political action. Our loan representative refilled out our loan application as joint tenants with right of survivorship. My question is to MrVisible. Why could you not buy a house with this status? I am cat curious.
I think it must vary from place to place, gtbiehle.
My sister and I owned a house together, and when we attempted to refinance our mortgage, or open a joint line of credit, or get a joint loan, we couldn’t, because we weren’t married.
The biggest frustration was that neither of us could get one on our own, either, because while they would calculate only the applicant’s income, both our debts were calculated. So even though I could have easily carried a loan with the income and debt I had, I was somehow also responsible for her student loan, her share of the mortgage, her credit cards, etc. - but not her income! When we asked the various banks who turned us down why this was, we were told that they trust married couples not to ever leave each other high & dry.
While I know that a change in the marriage laws to include same-sex couples wouldn’t have helped my sister and me, there are definitely situations in which the distinction of being married or not matters.
Oh, we could have. It’s just that neither of us make very much money.
One of the big advantages of buying a house, in fact the only thing that makes it affordable for most people, is that the interest payments are tax-deductible. The amount I pay in taxes every year is going to be about half of what we’d be paying in interest. My boyfriend is in the same situation. So we’d only get half the benefit of the tax deduction, because we can’t file jointly.
Which moves the purchase firmly into the ‘not affordable’ category.
I would assume that the problem isn’t legal ownership, but rather income tax rules. One of the big reasons for owning is the mortgage tax deduction. There are restrictions on when you can claim this, although looking at the instructions I have from 2002 (I can’t seem to find my 2003 1040 packet, hm), I don’t see how this would be a problem (there are no limits on the deduction until you hit $137,300 in income or have more than $500,000 in outstanding mortgages, unless you use part of the proceeds for purposes not related to building or maintaining the home, in which case you’re limited to $100,000). Of course, if your deduction exceeds your total income, then you’ll have problems, but if you’re paying more in interest than you earn you will have problems anyway.
I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t antigay discrimination hidden behind a pretext, because I don’t see a tax code reason for it.
Welcome to the boards, Fontbone. Despite a none-too-impressive post count, I’ve been here for awhile, and you seem like a pretty level-headed guy (girl?). I disagree with you, but you seem like a very good person.
There are some people, on this board, in this thread, who share the same position on this issue that I do. (i.e. Let them get married, and please invite me to the reception, because I bet the music will be fantastic.
)
Now, this analogy that you use, relating a genetic tendency toward homosexuality to a genetic tendency for violence: it has a significant flaw. To wit:
Violence hurts people - both the practitioner and the victim
Alcoholism hurts people - both the practitioner and the victim
Homosexuality… doesn’t hurt anyone.
Granting/taking away rights based on homosexuality has the same rational basis as granting/taking away rights based on lactose intolerance (the only kind we abide on this board! 
) or being allergic to dogs or not liking the taste of strawberries. These are all conditions influenced by genetics that do no personal harm to anyone. Therefore, they are not really “moral” issues.
Your reasoning about the soul having gender, etc., also has a problem, at least under our legal system. The way it’s designed, our laws are based on a sense of ethics derived from logic and reason. Discussions of a soul and other spiritual things don’t concern logic and reason. This doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it does mean it should not play a role in our legal system.
The second graf of my post should have said:
There are some people, on this board, in this thread, who share the same position on this issue that I do. (i.e. Let them get married, and please invite me to the reception, because I bet the music will be fantastic. ) However, they can be just as self-righteous and flat-out mean as the people I disagree with. Your opinions, fontbone are not “worthless” as another poster stated. I, for one, welcome them to the debate.
After seeing an article about the contest over gay marriages, I scanned today’s Los Angeles Times for editorials from the anti- crowd that can clearly explain–without painfully vague terms like “defending the institution of marriage” or “upholding sacred family values”–why they oppose this. I was very interested in actually reading a printed argument for it. I didn’t find any.
Trusting this message board will provide some healthy opposing points of view, I hopefully read through this thread. But wow, I really didn’t expect such a feeble debate from the other side, considering the length of this beast.
Has anyone come across any publications out there with a coherent argument against gay marriages? I really really want to know how and why so many people justify their resistance.
My parents, actually, aren’t comfortable with homosexual marriage and think it’s wrong. Since one of my oldest friends is homosexual and it’s as natural for me to refer to his partner as it is for me to refer to the spouse of any good friend, this can present a rather interesting situation.
They don’t know why they think it’s wrong. It’s not entirely religious; I think it’s just different. It challenges the rules they grew up with and their basic assumptions. A lot of etiquette, a lot of common courtesy is rooted in assumptions about gender roles. Even with nearly 40 years of feminism, those assumptions remain. In a traditional marriage, at least the form of those roles remains intact, even if the actual practice varies. You know whose supposed to do the cleaning and the yardwork, even if, in practice, Mum preferred cutting the grass. Forget what goes on in bed, if two men marry, who cleans the bathroom?! If two women marry, who changes the lightbulbs?! Nevermind that I learned carpentry and computers from my father and knitting and embroidery from my mother, the perceived roles persist. In fact, I’ll point out that my brothers never learned knitting and embroidery. While society may have evolved to the point where it’s all right for a woman to build a desk or a bookshelf, it’s not quite all right for a man to knit a sweater. “Tom boy” is vaguely complimentary; I know of no such complimentary epithet for a young man.
To give my parents credit, I think that if one of their kids had turned out to be gay, they would have found a way to work around it and would have continued to welcome them in their home, although it wouldn’t have been easy. Some folks may consider me a traitor for this, but I’m glad they didn’t have to cope with that. They had enough trouble with me being a knee-jerk non-conformist as it is. Gay rights and the prospect of gay marriage is not something they have to deal with in their everyday lives, and, because it makes them uncomfortable, because it’s more proof that the world has changed in ways they’re not comfortable with, it’s easier to keep it at arms length as something other people do which shouldn’t have to affect them. They don’t think about the legal ramifications of marriage such as not being allowed at one’s spouse’s bedside when he’s hospitalized or how one files an income tax return.
My parents couldn’t do anything about the changes in the understanding of the social contract which led to their good, competent daughter being laid off and unemployed for 7 months; there’s not much they can do about the changes in the social contract which would allow my old friend to make his partner his legal husband, but it’s an easier, seemingly more clear-cut thing to oppose. I know that for some people, there’s a bit of knee-jerk response which amounts to, “The two aren’t related,” but I’m not so sure of that. Society’s concept of marriage, for better or worse, involves economic assumptions, too, such as who supports whom. Put two people of the same gender into the equation, and the numbers go awry.
Anyway, that’s my best shot at providing an explanation for a position I don’t agree with.
CJ
And this is why we have courts. The Massachusetts governor said that it was up to the people of Massachusetts to decide. Since when do the majority get to decide that a minority gets fewer rights or gets second-class status? Let’s go to the Deep South during the 40s and 50s and take a majority vote on whether Blacks should get to vote at all. Let’s all vote on whether Blacks and Whites can marry each other.
And the woman underneath must have her eyes closed and be gritting her teeth, praying to Jesus that will all soon be over.
Anything else would be a sin.
Boy that’s a familiar image!
You must be one of my former lovers.
Sorry, my abnormality extends solely to being left-handed.