Printable View
My marriage was getting a little shaky, [img]graemlins/wilted.gif[/img] but thank Gawd now it has been strengthened by this new law! [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rainbow.gif[/img]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/ga....ap/index.html
<font color="#990000" size="1">[ February 06, 2004 11:40 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>
You know, I think this thing is kinda outa hand now.
I mean, I reallize that much of the populace of America still thinks that Marraige is the basis for procreation. That marriage is the beginning of the family unit as we know it and that we must protect the sacriment that Marraige is.
But, I kinda think this. If two people dig each other, then why cant they just be together? To me, it's overblown. I'm not gay. I really don't hang out with any gay people, and don't have any close friends that are gay, so it doesnt affect me at all. I just think that it's too much of a "totalitarian state" thing and that it's a lifestyle that's pretty common these days. Whether or not they are married, gay couples are gonna remain gay couples so it's really not a law against anything except having a ceremony. To be truthful, Gays are so common anymore that the whole "coming out" thing is looked upon by most straights with a big "SO WHAT!" I just think we are spending way too much time on telling a small portion of the population that they cant have some stupid ceremony and wear some stupid ring.
I don't know, I still think I'm with the legislature on this one (albeit reluctantly). There is a large segment of our population that seems to be stuck on the idea that if everyone can't do a certain thing, then by definition the Constitution is being violated because of discrimination.
In actuality, most laws are not applied equally to all. For example, we don't let 10 year-olds drive a car. Technically, we're discriminating against them. And spare me the endangerment notion; I know several 10 year olds who could drive better than many thirty-somethings I know.
In all honesty, if you want to be technical about it, do not marriage laws "discriminate" against non-married persons? When we give tax breaks to married couples, are we not, in a certain way, "punishing" singles with higher taxes?
Truth be known, I would rather see the institution of marriage, as a governmental precept, abolished entirely before I would want to see gay marriage. If you sought to abolish marriage, I think the arguments would be stronger.
As is, when you want to change a law, you need to understand why the law came into existence in the first place, and then decide whether the government has a compelling interest in maintaining the status quo. In this case, marriage as a government-recognized status first came into existence in the late 1800s, and the theory was, the government had a compelling interest in the promotion of the family unit (well, there were some ugly tax sides to this as well, but I digress).
As someone who works in this everyday, I can tell you up front that there is something to be said about the family unit. On the whole, when I go meet my clients in jail, I don't see a whole lot of guys who came from solid, two-parent backgrounds. Obviously, there's more to it than that, but I do see it.
But forget that for a moment. The burden is always on those favoring the change. ANd to them, I say, what government interest is fostered by recognizing gay marriage? Other than maybe some tax benefits (in the end, probably not a drop in the bucket). Other than making people feel good about themselves, which is not a good enough reason.
Personally, I am not concerned with gay marriage, but I am extremely concerned about gay adoption, and many who oppose gay marriage are concerned with the domino effect, i.e. you legalize gay marriage, next comes adoption.
But, like most things, while I have my opinion on this, I don't view it as a hot-button either way. There are far more pressing concerns that Columbus should be worrying about.
I don't think so, OBK. If your employer doesn't grant benefits to unmarried partners and the tax code doesn't recognize them, a lawyer isn't going to get those benefits for you. Well, with the exception of the Lewman, but now that he's engaged, Lew is too busy advocating protected open marriage status for swingers to bother with that problem. [img]graemlins/rainbow.gif[/img]
Also, AFAIK, gay adoption is legal. Rare in this area, but legal(?)
Lew you and I are about on the same page with this.
I'm on the fence and probably will stay there. What keeps me there is the "family unit". With divorce rates so high, single having kids, kids having kids, the family unit as we knew it has gone to pot. Coinincendently(sp) so has society.
I can understand life partners wanting some of the same benefits as a married couple. But most of those benefits can be achieved with a good lawyer (anyone know one? [img]wink.gif[/img] ) I can also see abuse of this system. What could prevent a union of convenience to get the benefits?
This is one of the issues that always incites varied responses and probably always will. The idea, is that it should be equal for a man and woman as it would be for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be married. The problem is that as with many rights issues there is always that "unfairness" tword the others. What I mean is this.
If you hold a gay right's parade, it's a celebration of gay's and their supporters and a demonstartion of their demand to be heard. It's generally looked upon as a statement of what needs to be done in order for them to be recognized.
If you had a straight rights parade, it would most likely be reffered to as Gay Bashing or a hate group. Even if it was just a group of straight people who are proud of being straight with no harm or hate tword homosexuals.
It's possible for someone other than a white to be a racist.
It's possible for someone other that a homosexual to be persecuted for their sexual prefferance.
It all comes down to this. What homosexuality is.
It is a lifestyle, a sexual prefferance.
It is not a race.
It is not a nationality.
And that is where that grey area comes from.
I don't believe homosexuality is a "lifestyle". I believe that there is some chemical reaction in the brain while the fetus is still being developed in the womb or some other reaction that happens prior to birth, but I believe it to be all genetic. You always hear about people saying from an early age they always knew that they were different and that "something wasn't right". I have had several gay friends in my life throughout the years, and thankfully they have been very receptive to questions I have had, which only further convinces me that the genetic idea is the most logical. Questions like "When did you realize you were gay"? What was your reasoning for believing that you were gay"? and so forth. What I found out was that most of them were to ashamed to admit that they could perhaps be gay and had went on to marry women and in one instance have a child. Only later to realize that he was not happy and then met the man of his dreams not only finding happiness but raising his daughter as well. While the rest realized that they were happier being with men.
As for the whole marriage is for a man and woman and to procreate, I don't buy that at all. I plan on marrying Lindsay and having a very happy life together without us ever having children (yes, we both agree that we do not want children) so why can't a (wo)man and a (wo)man be together forever? I still feel that some politicians do this because their religion condones it, and if that is the case is a big issue because now we are once again mixing church and state (Hey, everyone should have religion, but I don't think it needs to be expressed through politicians who happen to be the scum of the earth anyway).
You are not alone in thinking that way Raven, many people do. I just think that since it is not a Race, Nationality, or Religion it isn't looked upon as the same as many other groups who seek equal rights.
I'm all for equal rights and don't really care about gay marraige because it's more of a symbolic move to prove that a union between two people has been formed.
But, I do get pissed when certain groups seem to not want equal treatment but want special treatment.
You know what I mean.
Let's say someone "comes out" and wants everyone to accept their "gayness'. Well if we just treat them like everyone else, isn;t that what wanting equal rights is all about? Equality.
What they really seek is the abilty to have the same who cares attitude that most straights have about such things, but they dont realize that once they get equal treatment. that is what they get.
The whole. Oh great, your gay, pass the ketchup.
It becomes a non-issue other than to themselves.
Equal treatment means I dont have to treat you different or special because you are gay. It means I should treat you the same as a straight person.
The reality is that the pursuit of equality brings them to the forefront of issues, the equality utself wont do that for them.
So long "queer eye guys".
You now just become eye guys
Wow, who says there's no meaningful, intelligent discourse on the board?
Boo- as I've said in earler posts, I have no problem with a company offering benefits to domestic partners, but that's because I view it as a function of the market. Say Company A offers benefits, Company B doesn't. Suppose A and B are recruiting the same group of employees, some of whom happen to be gay. Company A lands the employees it wants, and Company B realizes it better get with the program lest it continue losing out in the recruiting business. If the market dictates it, so be it.
Lan- you think that's bad, this weekend I have to around and help offer my opinion on flowers (like that's gonna make any difference at all, she's going to make the decision).
Raven- are you sure about that? I've often wondered myself, and to me, it does have a huge effect on my analysis. If homosexuality is, indeed, a biological condition, then I am more willing to equate it to skin color and say that equal protection should be the rule.
However, if it a choice, I maintain my position. I am not biologist (perhaps Dulc or D-squared could enlighten us) but the problem I have always had is that, if homosexuality is biological, would not nature have selected it for extinction eons ago?
Greg- like I said, I'm not going to lose sleep if gay marriage becomes the law in all states, and I'm certainly do not ascribe to Rev. Phelps out in Tulsa, but I do think that a compelling government interest must be established by those who favor change (to say nothing of the fact that I do no like it when courts, such as in Mass, arbitrarily decide to make whatever law they want).
I think Lew has set a new standard for the multiple replies on one post. LOL!
Actually, all good points though.
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]