TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Are you serious?!?!?! So now the poor and a lot of middle class couples, who might even want to have kids should not be allowed to get married? A big reason people don't have kids right away is because they can't afford it at the time

We'll, if thats a genuine problem. Lets create loop-holes, or just up the anti to 10 years.

He'll this way, if your not going to make children you can't get married. So by definition no gay marriage. And best part is your not discriminating against the gays, because hey, everybody is being discriminated against. I'm starting to like this idea more and more

quote:

That's like saying African-Americans had individual choice during segregation because they could either live in unequal conditions and be persecuted because they could always move to another country.

Yea spot on! You got some great analogies there!

quote:

Gay marriage, or civil unions, or whatever you want to call it is about rights regarding inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc., not just wanting to file joint tax returns.

What's wrong with power of attorney? You don't have to be married to do that.

quote:

The divorce rate has been over 50% for years, so I don't know where the correlation is with gay people.

Its a cultural thing, gay culture has also been expected for years. I don't know if there is or isn't a direct correlation between divorce rates and gay liberalism. There might be. But gay liberalism is intertwined reflective of individual liberalism, which I think is much good for any stable society.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ok, I'll use your new examples then. (thanks for doing my research for me by the way) From: "In the Kentucky case, two county executives separately posted copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses. They were displayed among 11 frames of privately donated historical documents and symbols that helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence. All but the Ten Commandments were secular in nature. The American Civil Liberties Union objected and won at the federal appeals level. The counties then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. In Texas, Thomas Van Orden, a self-described "religious pluralist," filed suit against the placement, with private funds, of a 6-foot-tall monument on the grounds of Austin's Capitol Building in 1961. It bears the words "Ten Commandments," a star of David, a symbol representing Christ and the words "I am the Lord thy God." Van Orden says that, in allowing the monument, Texas crossed the line separating church and state by promoting "personal religious beliefs." Can I get an irrational hell yea up in here!!??

And yet it lies sitting on the SC in waiting for a decision. You a bettin' man? I still contend this sucker's gonna get passed, probably 6-5, but it'll pass.

Not that I don't have a certain amount of faith in our SC - they've been a welcome surprise on a number of issues over the past coupla years (the Texas anti-sodomy case, for ex. But I'm still bettin' this will go through.

quote:

You realize he is infringing on one set of civil liberties for another.

No, I don't, and here's why -

Conflicts between jobs and ethics occur all the time. A librarian at a Christian college, for example, who happens to be a devout nun should still have a neutral obligation to help a student find research proving the nonexistence of Jesus. A gas station clerk who abhores smoking and has seen both his parents pass away as a consequence of lung cancer still has an neutral obligation to sell cigarrettes to a customer. A store clerk who cannot stand the sight of dirty mags still has a neutral obligation to sell them to a customer if they ask for them. A physician has a neutral obligation to treat EVERYONE who needs treated, whether they are black, white, homosexual, female, male, etc. IOW, they have obligations inherent with their job, and they accept those obligations in full once they accept that job. If they choose not to fulfill those obligations, then they should NOT have chosen that given line of employment.

Furthermore, pharmacists are licensed BY THE STATE to sell LEGALLY prescribed drugs. If they choose not to do so based on some twisted moral agenda, then they have not fulfilled the terms of their state license and should therefore have it taken away. Christ, what�s the fucking purpose of being a pharmacist if you get to pick and choose what drugs a prescriber can take? That�s up to the fucking doctors in the first place, NOT the pharmacist.

Additionally, there are other reasons why women take oral contraceptives aside of birth control purposes � acne, hormone imbalances, extreme menstrual cramping are a few that immediately come to mind. For a pharmacist to completely disregard these other purposes, or what�s worse � personally judge a prescriber unworthy of needing such medicine for these purposes is reprehensible.

What�s more, in regards to the morning-after pill, there is a 72 hr. window in which that pill must be taken in order to avoid pregnancy. Some of these pharmacists are not only refusing to give the prescription to women, but are withholding the prescription altogether so that they NEVER receive it, as well as attempt to access another pharmacist with it. If you are referring to civil liberties being infringed, you are seemingly forgetting that Roe v. Wade IS the law of the land, and that women do, in fact, have a right to such a prescription, as well as a right to choose (whether or not I actually agree with it). The pharmacist is, in essence, taking this right away from the woman, which is not only unethical but quite unlawful as well.

I do realize that they are private entities, and by logic of free enterprise should have a right to sell what they want to. However, they ARE a public service, and ARE granted a state license to do business. What�s more, there is a major difference between selling a product and controlling access to it. Pharmacists do not just sell a product, they control access to it, and must therefore legally and ethically have a neutral obligation for someone to obtain such a product.

And on a Christian perspective, I think their actions are so unbelievably anti-Christian to begin with. No where have I seen in the Bible that such a given behavior is okay to be forced upon others. These fundie fucks just don�t seem to understand this in any manner. If they have a �moral� conflict with what they are doing, then they should simply step away from their jobs, period. They also tie themselves up in a bit of a moral quagmire � by not giving birth control or morning after pills, they enhance the risk of future unwanted pregnancies AND future abortions. The former is a bit funny considering how little we as a society, including the fundies, have done to help adopted and fostered programs, as well as help these teenage mothers and their children get through poverty. The latter is even worse � since abortions are legal, they only increase those numbers that they ardently fight against. But hey, since it�s no longer their problem and have successfully passed the problem onto someone else, they can pat themselves on the back and wipe their hands clean, right?

I really never thought I�d see the day where such a situation like this would occur � that the slippery slope of preventing conception would come down to refusing birth control. The drug store is not a fucking place of worship, last time I checked.

quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-abortion, err choice, but your taking the right from a pharamsict to discriminate.

They never had that right to begin with - that's the problem here.

quote:

Maybe we should just get rid of the pharamsict completely and just put in a machine that accepts perscriptions like vouchers? Anyway that OT...

Honestly, I fail to see the harm in that at all. Perhaps it puts a bit too much on the backs of doctors, but this machine you describe is exactly the role of a pharmacist to the customer. Oh sure, they have other roles to be certain, but in terms of dealing with the customer, this is exactly their purpose, period. They are NOT my fucking psychologist, NOT my fucking mother/father, and certainly NOT my fucking preacher. They don�t like such a role, they can kindly find another line of work.

quote:

All I am saying is that, if you'd just shut up they wouldn't be so invegorated. All I'm saying is that if the liberals would just shut up (because its pretty much going their way) I don't think the conservatives would be so fundie paristan as they are.

You honestly believe the fundies are the way they are because of LIBERALS? Oh Christ, where to begin with that one. Well I�ll tell you what, I�ll keep this short and give a counterexample. Fox. On the one side you see a channel that pretty much gets the public off on tits, ass, and shock � exactly the recipe that inflames fundies. What�s worse, it�s not even a fucking cable channel. Then turn over to Fox News and what do you see? A so-called �moral� compass for conservatives and their associated fundie crew.

The problem isn�t liberals � the problem is their own fucking irrationality. They have a problem with evolution? Well perhaps they should learn a bit more about biology and how science is conducted first, as well as learn to keep their faith wholly separate from science in the fucking first place.

They have a problem with safe sex programs? Well then they need to understand why their abstinence-only programs are such incredible failures, and why their president continues to fund them, which is actually bringing MORE unprotected sex and therefore MORE STDs onto our kids as well as unwanted teenage pregnancies.

They have a problem with an atheist wanting to take �under God� out of the Pledge? Well they should know a bit more about our own fucking history and realize it was only inserted in 1954 as a means to fight �godless� communism. And since godless communism is no longer a threat, and since about 10% of our country is now atheist or agnostic, and since there are, in fact, other religions that are in this country that believe in multiple deities, it�s only logical and ethical that it now be taken out.

They have a problem with homosexuals wanting to demonstrate their love and devotion as well as be acknowledged exactly the same way that heterosexuals do and want the exact same benefits that heterosexuals have that are granted by our government? They should fucking learn to understand and accept people that are slightly different than they in the first place, rather than proselytize and attempt to inflict their own narrow version of �morality� on everyone else. They should understand that homosexuals are who they are and do not CHOOSE to be that way, and that they are an embedded part of our society. What�s more, they are also an embedded part of religious institutions and churches now too, and rightfully so. Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way, and for them to claim their way is the ONLY way of interpreting 1Timothy and 1Corinthians is nothing short of pure arrogance and ignorance.

To me society is slowly but surely waking up to the fundie irrationality, and slowly but surely calling them on their bullshit. If that�s a problem for the fundies, so be it � if they can�t smell their own bullshit then that�s their problem. Everyone else can, and it�s not merely the �liberals� who have noses.

quote:

True, another part of the beauty of the constitution is the spirit it was written in. I don't think we are honoring that spirit as much anymore. It is more of a memory then the heartbeat of America by every passing day...

What is this old forgotten "spirit" you speak of? To me I think we're very much in the spirit that it was written.

quote:

You just can't help yourself! You have a problem a real, real problem!

I know. Old habits die hard.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus DIVORCE! DIVORCE BE UPON YOU! THOU SHALTH DIVORETH! IMMEDITATLEY! OR HAVE KIDS! Thouth have no shame in thyself?! Good one Opus, now you've gone and made me into a Christian fundie. I tell you, its this type of attitude exactly. I could of cared less, hell I was joking before, but now that you are prodding the issue, I'm thinking actually this might be a good idea....

Sometimes I seemingly miss your humor. I don't discuss issues with you often, so I may be a bit rusty in decifering your humor tone with your serious tone. Sorry.

quote:

Hey?! This coming from the same guy that gave me the history of gay marriage some pages back? You know marriage wasn't what it always was today. Back in the day, people had arranged marriages. Often times husband and wife never loved each other. Yup, basically the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. It has gone away from that, you now chose who you marry, and you marry who you love... but in the end its still designed to be there for you to have kids.

Perhaps that may certainly have been the purpose in the past for a number of various reasons, both evolutionary, societal, territorial, etc. But as I�ve mentioned a number of times previously � times have certainly changed. We no longer need to have children in order to increase our territory. We no longer listen solely to our instinctive drive to have children to pass down our genes. Most of us no longer listen to the ruling religious institutions that say God commands us to have children. We�ve become a bit more rational since then, and some have come to realize that marriage isn�t primarily about children, but the relationship, love, and devotion between 2 people.

That�s not to say that love and devotion won�t be spread onto children when they have them, but the focus of the marriage is not so much driven on the desire of having children superceding everything else.

quote:

No its ok, if you become irresponsible you can send the Mrs. to a pharamacy in Michigan.

The thought had crossed my mind...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What benifits exactly?

Here's a list of some of them:

quote:

Marriage Rights and Benefits Tax Benefits: *Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. *Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits: *Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. *Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. *Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. *Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse�s behalf. Government Benefits: *Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. *Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. *Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits: *Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. *Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. *Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. *Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse�s close relatives dies. Medical Benefits: *Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. *Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits: *Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. *Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits: *Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. *Applying for joint foster care rights. *Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. *Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits: *Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." *Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits: *Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. *Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. *Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections: *Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). *Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). *Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can�t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. *Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. *Obtaining domestic violence protection orders. *Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. *Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

There's a total of 1,049 rights and benefits granted from civil marriage, according to a 1997 GAO report. You can read the report here:

http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

quote:

Its not the financial impact I am against in gay marriage. I don't think the gays will "steal" money meant to go to children. I am against the social ramifications of their choice of action.

It would be nice to see verifiable evidence to support your worries here.

quote:

You can Opus it yourself if you want.

I reign supreme. No one can be me!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Actually marriage is supposed to be the stable structure in which to raise children. Thats how it was formed. The only reason we allowed it to be something where two people loved each other is because society through its own darwinism discovered its better for the children when the parents actually love each other than when they do not. Now people are forgetting why marriage is there in the first place.

Darwinism had nothing to do with this. I'm afraid you're reaching a bit here.

quote:

Plus, I never heard anybody said "Marriage made my life a whole lot easier!"

But strangely, there are studies that show that people whom are married have better health - lower blood pressure, lower stress levels, lower resting heart rates, etc.

I might contend otherwise at times, but who knows. Christ I can't remember my single life anymore, so it's tough to be objective.

quote:

Sure. If they can't chose, then they are qualified for marriage. They don't passy the "marriage" test. Historically the gayest of the societies, i.e. the Greeks would always take on a women wife despite having butt-sex all day with the guys. This is how all gay societies have been historically, you would never marry your male-lover. That'd just be something to do to get your wife made at you.

Okay, THIS is Yoepus joking, right? Please?

quote:

Okay, THIS is Yoepus joking, right? Please?

Hes on that crack cocaine again......

quote:

Originally posted by zig Hes on that crack cocaine again......

Sarcasm is a beautiful thing to behold.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Quick question: What happens if a gay couple gets married in one state and moves to a state where gays cannot be married?

It doesn't hold up. If you're married in massachusetts (where it's legal) and move to say Wisconsin it doesn't hold up. You'll than need to become "single individuals".

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 ...My point was that they do want to teach Christianity in public schools. Teaching New Testament principles as fact in public schools would concern most people of other religions. Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments incident, the recent events in Kansas and the poll numbers on teaching creationism in both those states, it's not just a few lobbying groups wanting that.

Two years ago when I was a sophmore we were all required to take a course called World History. We learned about probably 10 different religions within that class. As to their believes, traditions, etc etc. I personally don't take part in any religion, nor do I want to. I believe in science, evolution. Don't get me wrong, I have friends that are Christians, Jewish, whatever. I don't care what people take part in. I do believe that teaching a wide range of religions is a good thing. Even though I don't take part in them, I wasn't offended about learning what others believe in or what they grasp. Just because you learn about it, doesn't mean you have to take part in it.

We obviously didn't go extremely in depth regarding all the particular pieces of religion like 10 commandments etc, but rather just knowing that a particular religion has commandments.

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik It doesn't hold up. If you're married in massachusetts (where it's legal) and move to say Wisconsin it doesn't hold up. You'll than need to become "single individuals".

So when gays are married in Massachusets, they are really being gay-married (which is a special, state specific marriage), whereas others are being straight-married (which is a nation wide marriage)? Or do all married people, moving from one state to the other, need to get their marriage renewed in their new home state?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic So when gays are married in Massachusets, they are really being gay-married (which is a special, state specific marriage), whereas others are being straight-married (which is a nation wide marriage)? Or do all married people, moving from one state to the other, need to get their marriage renewed in their new home state?

Er, perhaps I'm just insanely tired, but I didn't quite understand what you just wrote. Basically, (I'm assuming you're a guy), if you married another man in Massachusets, it would be perfectly legal. You could call yourselves married, live in the same house, and do whatever you'd like. If you moved to say Kansas, you can no longer be married, and get those shared benefits.

That's where the whole deal of banning gay marriage is fucking ridiculous in the first place. You can't necessarily enforce it to the extreme volume that these republicans would like. What are they going to do, put cameras in all our houses to make sure no homosexual activies are being stirred up? I don't think so.

So basically, if you were married to another man, you couldn't get it renewed in another state, your marriage is just done. Period. No questions asked, you're no longer married.

I hope that helps a bit. I don't have a lot of experience in politics yet like some of these other very intelligent people like Opus, Wolv, and Yoepus. But that's how it works essentially...

Now if you don't mind, I need to go do some AP Physics.

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik Er, perhaps I'm just insanely tired, but I didn't quite understand what you just wrote.

I probably did a bad job of formulating that post. What I'm getting at is how legal marriage works in the US. If a married couple moves from one state to the other, do they have to get a new marriage-certificate (or whatever it's called) from the state they're moving to? So that a gay couple trying to get this new certificate in a homophobic state would be turned away. Or do homophobic states have a law that requires gay couples moving in, to surrender their marriage certificate?
Hope that was a bit more clear - I'm disturbingly fascinated with this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I probably did a bad job of formulating that post. What I'm getting at is how legal marriage works in the US. If a married couple moves from one state to the other, do they have to get a new marriage-certificate (or whatever it's called) from the state they're moving to? So that a gay couple trying to get this new certificate in a homophobic state would be turned away. Or do homophobic states have a law that requires gay couples moving in, to surrender their marriage certificate? Hope that was a bit more clear - I'm disturbingly fascinated with this issue.

Yeah, me too. The more I dig into it the more it interests me.

In regards to your question, however, the answer is yes -
states must honor public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of one another, in accordance to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the Constitution, and this includes marriage:

http://www.answers.com/topic/full-f...d-credit-clause

So in terms of a gay marriage in Mass., for example, another state like Kansas must honor the fact that they have been legally married in that other state. Therefore every other state, despite it�s own laws against gay marriage, must honor the marriage of a same sex couple if it was performed in a state where it is deemed legal, like Massachusetts.

However, that does not entail that the same-sex couple receive those certain rights and benefits given to heterosexual marriages � because these rights and benefits are entailed on a Federal level, (and I believe some are entailed on a state level too, but I�m not sure). If the state of Mass. has certain rights and benefits given to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, then I don�t believe Kansas has to honor such benefits as they apply only to those state citizens. I�m not entirely certain on this but I believe this is more or less accurate.

One other thing to note � the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Clinton in the late �90�s defines marriage to be between a man and a woman. I am uncertain as to whether or not DOMA defines heterosexual couples receiving these certain Federal rights and benefits given to those married, but I�d venture to guess that it doesn�t. I haven�t examined that particular law enough to know for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus We'll, if thats a genuine problem. Lets create loop-holes, or just up the anti to 10 years. He'll this way, if your not going to make children you can't get married. So by definition no gay marriage. And best part is your not discriminating against the gays, because hey, everybody is being discriminated against. I'm starting to like this idea more and more

I still would like to see your definition of "marriage" because none of the ones I've seen mention any about mandatory procreation to make the marriage valid.

quote:

Yea spot on! You got some great analogies there!

Actually I think it is a good analogy, because what you presented to St. Andrew as "individual choice" was basically that they have the "choice" to follow what you consider moral and tell them they can do or else they aren't allowed their union. Individual choice would be that they choose on their own what is morally appropriate for themselves.

quote:

What's wrong with power of attorney? You don't have to be married to do that.

Opus detailed all the aspects later on in this thread.

quote:

Its a cultural thing, gay culture has also been expected for years. I don't know if there is or isn't a direct correlation between divorce rates and gay liberalism. There might be. But gay liberalism is intertwined reflective of individual liberalism, which I think is much good for any stable society.

If there's no evidence that shows they cause marriages to fail or that gay couples raising children causes harm, what's the problem with granting them equal rights? There's other relevant resaons that have caused the divorce rate to climb, some of which are actually good, such as allowing women to work and have equal rights themselves. Many women are now financially stable to leave unhealthy relationships where they weren't in the 1950s.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yeah, me too. The more I dig into it the more it interests me. In regards to your question, however, the answer is yes - states must honor public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of one another, in accordance to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the Constitution, and this includes marriage: http://www.answers.com/topic/full-f...d-credit-clause So in terms of a gay marriage in Mass., for example, another state like Kansas must honor the fact that they have been legally married in that other state. Therefore every other state, despite it�s own laws against gay marriage, must honor the marriage of a same sex couple if it was performed in a state where it is deemed legal, like Massachusetts. However, that does not entail that the same-sex couple receive those certain rights and benefits given to heterosexual marriages � because these rights and benefits are entailed on a Federal level, (and I believe some are entailed on a state level too, but I�m not sure). If the state of Mass. has certain rights and benefits given to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, then I don�t believe Kansas has to honor such benefits as they apply only to those state citizens. I�m not entirely certain on this but I believe this is more or less accurate. One other thing to note � the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Clinton in the late �90�s defines marriage to be between a man and a woman. I am uncertain as to whether or not DOMA defines heterosexual couples receiving these certain Federal rights and benefits given to those married, but I�d venture to guess that it doesn�t. I haven�t examined that particular law enough to know for sure.

Wait, so they still are recognized as being a married couple? I was told, honestly the day that I wrote that, that the marriage is no longer considered to be in place. I was told this by a former lawyer who now is the teacher of my class, and he is a very intelligent man...

Well, forget what I said than.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I still would like to see your definition of "marriage" because none of the ones I've seen mention any about mandatory procreation to make the marriage valid.

man, women, sex - forever.

quote:

Actually I think it is a good analogy, because what you presented to St. Andrew as "individual choice" was basically that they have the "choice" to follow what you consider moral and tell them they can do or else they aren't allowed their union. Individual choice would be that they choose on their own what is morally appropriate for themselves.

uh huh.

No, a good analogy would be Southern shop keepers being able to segregate their establishments and people deceiding whether they would want to patron them or not...

anyway

quote:

Opus detailed all the aspects later on in this thread.

most none federal benifits (which again, if you look at why they exist it is to promote a family that raises children. A traditional family where one parent works and the other does not. this is is the origin of most the benifits), again none federal benifits can be given via power of attorney such as visitation rights, financial, estate, etc.

Basically yes I am against gays enjoying benifits that were designed for the traditional family.

quote:

If there's no evidence that shows they cause marriages to fail or that gay couples raising children causes harm, what's the problem with granting them equal rights?

There is still not enough evidence on this. One can not conclude one way or ther other of the effects of gay marriage on children, as there haven't been enough longterm peer-reviewed studies on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik Wait, so they still are recognized as being a married couple? I was told, honestly the day that I wrote that, that the marriage is no longer considered to be in place.

Well its all theortic to the best of my knowledge. I think most states are not honoring gay marriage (invoking the claim that the marriage of definition can not be between gays). Their argument is sort of like saying "If Kansas has a passanger driver licenses that allows you to conduct a 500 ton train in Kansas, Texas won't let you drive a train because driving a 500 ton train is by definition not a passanger driver licenses category".

Eh bad analogy, but closest I could come up with.

In theory according to the consitution however states have to honor marriages of other states.

The issue is in limbo right now (states are doing whatever they want) because this has been brought to the Supreme Court (Afterall, recall gay marriage is just recently allowed in the USA). Once say a guy who is married to a guy in Massachuttess moves with the guy to Texas, and Texas doesn't honor his marriage, he'll sue the state. It'll fail in the State court, and then the gay guy will have to bring an appeal in US Appellate courts, then if they don't like what the appellate court rules it'll go to the Supreme court.... so it'll take a while till it is decided really.

Right now, everybody is right.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus most none federal benifits (which again, if you look at why they exist it is to promote a family that raises children. A traditional family where one parent works and the other does not. this is is the origin of most the benifits), again none federal benifits can be given via power of attorney such as visitation rights, financial, estate, etc. Basically yes I am against gays enjoying benifits that were designed for the traditional family.

I agree to that... to a point. A gay couple may still raise a family, and may still need someone at home to stay with the child. However, if there are benefits which only partners of different sexes enjoy, it should only be for them. I can't think of any that exist only between different sexes however...

Connecticut has passed a bill which will allow same sex civil unions and grant hundreds of rights to gay couples....but they will not allow marraige.....interesting storey.....link below.....

...........................Link.........................

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.