| Author |
Message |
    
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |     |
Art,
I can't speak for other gays/lesbians regarding the tax benefits. I only speak for myself. As far as the meeting, unfortunately I'll have to miss it. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
(So I said to myself, "Sarge, if someone else ain't gonna answer lumpynose's question, go find it yourself." And I did.)
http://public.findlaw.com/family/nolo/ency/6DF0766E-C4A3-4952-A542F5997196E8B5.h tml
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html
www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP7-marriagevcu.shtml
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2459
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Cfa,
Tell us what you're thinking. I'll be happy to bring your message... |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 131
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Art,
Is tonight's meeting about the proposed new police HQ; or is the meeting about all things and everything which might impact upon the Township?
TomR. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 111
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
TomR, I'm no lawyer by a long shot, but it seems to butt up against establishment of religion, as I mentioned, and in that context could also violate equal protection.
I really don't think the government has any business smiling or frowning upon our personal relationships and I really don't want lawmakers in Washington, Trenton, or anywhere else rewarding me for falling in love and getting married while penalizing a neighbor for the same thing under slightly different circumstances.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2462
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:18 am: | |
TomR,
Tonight's meeting was all about the proposed new police HQ building and where to put it... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 938
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
Jesse Jackson won't endorse gay marriage, and is really rather annoyed when the question is asked.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/17/jackson_wary_of_same_sex_ri ft/ |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 248
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
This whole issue of same sex marriage bothers me, not because of the issue because of how much focus it is getting.
I don't agree with President Bush that we need to amend the constitutation and I think that he opened a can of worms by stating this in the State of the Union.
What bothers me is that there are so many other bigger hurdles that face our country.
Kerry is afraid to take about and I prediect that he will probably change his mind on this issues if it pushes him away from President Bush, but regardless, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, so if your gonna place blame, place it where is should be placed. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 134
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
argon_smythe,
So why is it clearly unconstitutional?
I'm not getting the argument that when viewed in the context of the establishment clause, a same gender marriage prohibition violates the equal protection clause.
TomR. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 1997
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Sylad-
A bigger hurdle to you maybe. I, for one, take any kind of legalized discrimination as the biggest hurdle we have as a nation. Discrimination is directly related to almost everything: the economy, education, etc.
And, until you've lived in the day-to-day of not being legally married to your spouse, you have no idea.... |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2884
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
"Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, so if your gonna place blame, place it where is should be placed."
Beg pardon? As a statute, is was passed by both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate, and 342-67 in the House). Those are veto-proof majorities, by the way.
If you follow the two links, you can see who did, and who did not, vote for the law. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 249
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Greenetree...I have friends that are gay and they are on both sides of this issue. No, I can't walk in your shoes but I would be happy to listen so I can better understand the problems that you face.
If the Defense of Marriage Act is not overturned how will this impact our economy, our education system?
There are much bigger issues/hurdles that face our country. If you can't see that then you need a reality check.
I doubt that this issues is a top issue for most Americans, I doubt it would make the top Ten for a large majority of Americans.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 941
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Nohero -- are you saying that Clinton didn't sign the Defense of Marriage Act? What's your point? He could have vetoed it out of principle.
Wait......never mind. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4692
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Right now it seems to be at the top of the chart. Read the papers or turn on the TV news.
The term "Gay Marriage" is unfortunately and unfairly a hot button phrase along with "Partial Birth Abortion".
The backlash is want frightens me. Anti-gay and lesbian sentiment isn't very far below the surface. Look at Ohio's reaction to the Massachussetts Supreme Court decision. It will be interesting, actually scary, to see if the California legislature cancels a rather strong domestic partnership law over the marriage licesnses in San Francisco.
I think I can empathise with Greentree and her spouse. Greentree is one of our more interesting and inclusive posters here. However, is the difference between the terms "marriage" and "civil union" (if there is a difference) worth the backlash?
|
Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
BobK;
If full equality is not worth the price of political courage, what is? After all, the back of the bus gets to the destination just as well as the front does, but that doesn't justify Jim Crow. There should be no compromises in pursuit of human dignity. Human and civil rights exist for all of us, or they are not safe for any of us. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 933
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Damn straight. That's really all there is to it, no matter how much political hot air is puffed into it.
"It's not discrimination, it's locomotion". Good one!  |
VinnyM
Citizen
Username: Frodo
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Sylad---I guess I need a reality check. What bigger issues/hurdles face our country? Who decides what makes the list?
I can find plenty of people that are well-employed and not feeling the pressures of the current economy. Does that mean that this is not an issue right now?
Is it only an important issue if it affects more than 51% of the country?
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 135
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Nohero,
Thanks for the links. I've been looking for the full text of the Defense of Marriage Act, and your Senate vote link got me there.
TomR. |
lumpynose
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 711
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
For the life of me, I don't understand why staight people CARE if gay partners want to get married. Why is it their business and why do they care? How does it affect them and why can't they mind their own business? |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 726
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
I posted this on a thread a few weeks ago...
I know I’m going to make a lot of enemies here but at least I’ll be honest.
I don’t think that Gay couples should be allowed marry. I think that is something that a man and woman do when they are creating a family. I don’t hate gays or think that their going to hell or any of that. I just think that marriage is a holy institution that shouldn’t be changed. I won’t discriminate with respect to jobs, housing or even friendships. It’s just what I think. I know the face of marriage has changed over the years and there are billions of divorces and separations, but my parents have been married for 35 years and that’s one reason I’m proud of them.
I do think that a gay couple should get all of the legal benefits of a married couple.
So what ever the percentages are that are against this (I’m obviously the only one on MOL). I am one of them. And I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I just wanted to tell you that there are relatively normal people out there (I’m classifying myself as one) that are not happy with the situation.
Before I get bashed to hard remember I was just being honest.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Sylad-
You need to be very careful using phrases like "I have friends....". That phrase (and the more common "some of my best friends...") usually preceed a justification for why the speaker is not discriminating.
And, FWIW, my friends also are on many sides of the issue.
Cato, Notehead and Vinny- thank you for more eloquent ways of making my point.
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 250
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
VinnyM.. I have not said this is not an important issue, I have said that there are more important issues/hurdles that we face as a nation. I started a thread a week ago on the most important issues/factors that people would consider when they voted; nobody has listed same sex marriage or civil unions.
In my view here are the most important issues/hurdles we face as a nation, others will agree or disagree:
The Economy
Situation in Iraq
Job Growth
Terrorism
Education
Cost of healthcare
Gun Control---lack of
Abortion—keeping it legal
The Environment
Proliferation of nuclear weapons
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 251
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Where am I discriminating...I have not stated my opinion on the issue, I have stated my opinion as to the importance of the issue when taken into context of all issues that face our country.
And for the record. I am against any law/act that does not provide equal rights to all americans. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 112
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Brett,
If marriage is a "holy institution" then our government should be out of the business altogether.
TomR, I don't have time to respond right now but I will when I'm not running out the door... your questions are interesting and require me to think... puff puff puff...
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6404
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Marriage and family stability is often promoted for economic reasons. |
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Brett,
Thanks for being honest, but I see nothing holy about marriage. It's a way of enjoying the benefit of filing a joint tax return, plain and simple. If the church was holy, why are there so many pedophile priests???? I have to laugh when the Catholic church condemns gays and the propsal of marriage while so many priests are committing crimes. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 727
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Argon: You’re right the government shouldn’t be in this at all. But there does need to be some entity (for lack of a better word) that monitors unions, tax implications, inheritances and so on. As I said marriage is different in my eyes.
CFA: The catholic church is in shambles, but I can still hold my beliefs with out being a pedophile. Condemn the Church but not the people who think that the Ten Commandments are good values and that family is important. I don’t agree with a lot of the things the church does (Abortion, birth control). When I say Holy it’s not by the strict definition, so when I say something is not holy I mean it’s against my “personal values”.
My last issue it that I hope the “Civil Unions” are taken as seriously as I take “Marriage”. Many people feel that Unions will become a Marriage of Convenience. To be use to beat the system for as long as you can an then move on.
With that said, march your asses down to City Hall and give them a piece of your mind. I never said that you shouldn’t go for it, I just don’t like it.
|
Maplewoody
Citizen
Username: Maplewoody
Post Number: 467
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 7:55 pm: | |
Has anyone in Maplewood gone and applied as a gay couple for a marriage license? Just curious! What was the outcome? If I lived in SanFrancisco, I would've applied...so far they
say 2,500 gay couples have been married recently
there! Way to go our gay bros. & sisters
out in SF.... |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 137
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
argon_smythe,
Whenever you get to it. This issue isn't going away soon, and I'd like to hear your views on the matters you've raised.
TomR. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 966
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
From a civil point of view there should be no discrimination.
From a religious point of view there is certainly a historical definition of marriage that is restrictive.
Unfortunately, the civil authorities around the world have legislated an institution which is inherently rooted in religious tradition and therefore we have a conflict which is very difficult to resolve. And we can't go back in history and eliminate the concept of civil marriage (replacing it with a civil union), so we have the problems and conflicts we see today.
I fear the potential for backlash more than anything.
|
VinnyM
Citizen
Username: Frodo
Post Number: 55
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
Two straight people can go to a justice of the peace and be married. They are not considered to be in a civil union. The marriage is not recognized by the Church, but it is recognized by the government. Why should gays and lesbians not be allowed the same right?
No one is asking any Church to recognize same-sex marriage. They are free to practice their religion as they see fit. If a Religion holds that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, then they do not have to perform same-sex marriages. |
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Amen!  |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 141
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
cac, Vinny & cfa,
You all seem to have clearly defined views on marriage.
Can any of you respond to the question of whether State or Federal proscriptions on same gender marriage are inappropriate?
TomR. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2894
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
And from the "It's not just San Francisco" department, a little common sense talk from the Mayor of Chicago:
quote:Mayor Daley said Wednesday he would have "no problem" with County Clerk David Orr issuing marriage licenses to gay couples -- and Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built.
"They're your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists, your politicians," the mayor said. "They're someone's son or daughter. They're someone's mother or father. . . . I've seen people of the same sex adopt children, have families. [They're] great parents.
"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else.''
A devout Catholic, Daley scoffed at the suggestion that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," he said.
Source: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gay19.html |
doulamomma
Citizen
Username: Doulamomma
Post Number: 166
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
There was an informative discussion on "All Things Considered" yesterday on NPR... it went into the original question of the definitions, as well as tax issues, full faith & credit, etc...
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1683044
If the link does not work , just go To the NPR site & search "gay marriage" & look for "listener questions" heading from 2/18. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2001
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Another very good & simple comparison. See the chart at the bottom:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Marriage3&CONTENTID=16388&TEMPLATE=/Cont entManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page