|
Major Victory for Gay Rights
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s...ling/index.html
I wonder how this is going to affect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and whether people are going to go to Massachussets, get married, then move back home and sue the home state to recognize the marriage. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s...ling/index.html
I wonder how this is going to affect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and whether people are going to go to Massachussets, get married, then move back home and sue the home state to recognize the marriage. |
ya i read about that, though they said the courts fell short of allowing marriage liscences to gay couples, the court sent their desicion to the Mass. legislature to hammer out the implications and technicalities of it. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Without even reading it, I know Barney Frank had a hand in it. Not that Massachussetts isn't already liberal enough! |
|
|
| Nadi |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s...ling/index.html
I wonder how this is going to affect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and whether people are going to go to Massachussets, get married, then move back home and sue the home state to recognize the marriage. |
Is there really a DOMA? Thats just ing pathetic. Oh yea and I love hearing all the conservative talking heads(Orielly etc.) blab about how legalizing gay marriage threatens the instutition of marriage in america. With arguments about there going to have to also allow people to have multiple marriages and stuff.
Personally I don't think marriage should be state sponsered. You can be married in your church/temple/place of worship/Mcdonals/wherever else you want in my opinion. Doesnt seem to serve any real purpose. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nadi
Is there really a DOMA? Thats just ing pathetic. Oh yea and I love hearing all the conservative talking heads(Orielly etc.) blab about how legalizing gay marriage threatens the instutition of marriage in america. With arguments about there going to have to also allow people to have multiple marriages and stuff.
Personally I don't think marriage should be state sponsered. You can be married in your church/temple/place of worship/Mcdonals/wherever else you want in my opinion. Doesnt seem to serve any real purpose. |
Yes there really is a DOMA. And unfortunetly the complication of marriage rights extends beyond mere "recognition" alone. If you've ever filed a tax return, you would realize the importance of increasing the number of "dependants" in your household. Simply put, the larger your household/spouses, the bigger the tax break you get. These acts were of course taken under the premise of promoting family values of a stabilized hosehold where children could be raised. Many rights are taken for granted in assuming that the "female" would be the designated individual to take care of the children/husband, forgo careers, and essentially sacrifice their livlihood for the sake of the children/husband. However, once gay marriages become legal, one must ask whether gay couples should be afforded the same rights and privelidges that hetersexual couples are afforded ... given that the end result of the program is rendered invalid. |
|
|
| Nadi |
| ^^^ I havnt filled tax returns because I havnt really worked(im 17 blah blah blah), But it seems to me that you should still be able to determine dependents without marriage. And there should be no tax breaks just to promote marriage. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nadi
^^^ I havnt filled tax returns because I havnt really worked(im 17 blah blah blah), But it seems to me that you should still be able to determine dependents without marriage. And there should be no tax breaks just to promote marriage. |
Ouch ... that would not sit well with the majority of americans ;)
I'm just saying that if the entire issue were about 'recognizing' marriages than the whole debate would not be nearly half as complex. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I don't think the government has any business recognizing marriages at all. It's a rather overt attempt to coerce individuals into choosing a specific lifestyle which has been arbitrarily denoted as desirable by the state.
Besides, my nostrils still detect that peculiar stink of theology wherever the issue of marriage is raised. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I don't think the government has any business recognizing marriages at all. It's a rather overt attempt to coerce individuals into choosing a specific lifestyle which has been arbitrarily denoted as desirable by the state.
Besides, my nostrils still detect that peculiar stink of theology wherever the issue of marriage is raised. |
I agree 100% ... although that should not be surprising since we are both antagonists to affirmative action measures. |
|
|
| rizen |
| I'm sure the two gay "heros" of flight 93 that may have saved the whitehouse, would be happy. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
I'm sure the two gay "heros" of flight 93 that may have saved the whitehouse, would be happy. |
Were they really gay? I hadn't heard that. I thought that one of them was talking to his wife on his cell phone or something and that's where the whole "Let's Roll" catch phrase came from. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
I went to a gay/lesbian rights meeting here at my school, and found out some interesting facts about why they want the right for marraige so bad. In becoming married, 1,500 rights become opened to a person, the option that are for gays/lesbians, warrant 10-15 rights. ffs! That's a rip off.
Was a good meeting though. I was impressed. |
|
|
|
|
