Being Gay and Same Sex Marriages......Huh !

[dbenjamin]

Did I miss something ? Everybody on the rampage about being gay and same sex marriages, there is a huge court case going on about this and people are protesting .....today . Is it really that serious ? I guess it is its going on now.

[sigmapi1501]

Is an entire group of  people's civil rights a serious thing? I'd say so.

[lvstephanie]

It would be important if it were about a person's civil rights but unfortunately there is no law that is criminalizing homosexuality... nor are there laws proscribing who you can appoint as enduring power of attorney, executor and / or beneficiaries of your will, guardianship of children, etc. especially in regards to a person's sexual orientation. Most laws that the legal term for marriage are about are for tax benefits that married couples get, which the original intention was to provide an incentive to creating the next generation in a stable household (although some may argue that there isn't a real need for additional incentive aside from the natural one ). There may be other issues when a person doesn't give explicit directives (eg a homosexual partner not given automatic "spousal" benefits upon a person's death because that person failed to instruct that their partner is to be a beneficiary), although again this can occur even among heterosexual situations (eg an ex-spouse from a 20-year marriage contesting a will because the current spouse was married to the deceased within the last year and the will was written when the previous couple was married).

Having said all that, I actually think that they should just get rid of the legal term of marriage altogether. Get rid of marriage benefits in the tax code (perhaps move those benefits to those that have dependents, since this will create incentive to raising children), and any other benefit of marriage (like automatic directives for a person's spouse). And then rely on people giving proper directives as to who they wish to share benefits and powers with. Relegate the term of marriage for religious reasons alone since that is really where it belongs.

[sigmapi1501]

It would be important if it were about a person's civil rights but unfortunately there is no law that is criminalizing homosexuality...

You'd like to see one?

[LovelyxOdd]

Did I miss something ? Everybody on the rampage about being gay and same sex marriages, there is a huge court case going on about this and people are protesting .....today . Is it really that serious ? I guess it is its going on now.

It's serious when a certain group of human beings can't have the same rights as other humans just cause they choose to love and be with someone of the same gender.

[webe4angels]

Yes there is.

And in my opinion No one has to right to tell anyone who they can love.. nor should they have the right to tell someone who they can marry.

As with everything else.. our time has changed.  We have come so far..  The world has changed... People finally are able to be honest about who they are... as they should be. 

I hope this gets settled soon.

[lovekat]

I am a very open minded person and it really doesn't bother me not one bit.  I feel that people are trying to judge others because of their sexuality, but this is not nothing new.  It is just the fact that now people are coming out about it, well I feel they should.  Everyone can state at least one person in their circle, family or at their job has a same sex relationship.  At the end of life GOD will be the judge, we all have to learn to  live life and stay out of others businesses.

Sometime same sex marriages/relationships last longer the man and women marriages/relationships.  There are so many people that are undercover and that is scary for their significant other or spouse.

[lvstephanie]

It would be important if it were about a person's civil rights but unfortunately there is no law that is criminalizing homosexuality...

You'd like to see one?

Sure. Show me a law that makes homosexuality and / or homosexual relationships a criminal activity. In fact I know you won't be able to since in 2003 the US Supreme Court in Lawrence vs the State of Texas found that Texas' sodomy laws were unconstitutional (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_vs._Texas). As a result of this decision, all states allow any form of sexual congress between consenting adults in a non-commercial, private setting regardless of the gender of the people engaged in such acts. There may be some states that still make fornication illegal (fornication being sexual acts outside of the confines of marriage whereas sodomy is any sexual act that is not male-female intercourse) as well as adultery being illegal, but most states have seen the prior ruling as also making these laws unconstitutional too. Yet even if that is the case, those fornication / adultery laws are addressing all sexual acts outside of a marriage, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Thus I am correct in stating that this is not about civil liberties being taken away; people can live the way they want to live, can love and date and have sex with whoever they want within certain confines, like being between consenting, non-related adults (thus rape, incest, and child exploitation still remain illegal in all states (and may differ only in age of consent and degree of separation in a family to no longer be considered incest)). Unfortunately (as evidenced by most of the posts in this tread and in talking with others in the general public), people still think that the current case before the Supreme Court is about not allowing homosexuals the same freedoms as everyone else. And no, "marriage" is not a freedom nor a right if defined in terms of who receives certain benefits for fitting a particular criteria. If that were the case, then a whole host of benefits would have to be eliminated, including things like MedicAid that provides medical assistance to those that fall under a certain income level.

The current case before the Supreme Court is about the federal definition of marriage and how that relates to survivor benefits and other codifications of "marriage" at the federal level. The first set of arguments is about how California has amended their constitution to define marriage... I feel that that should have been thrown out since that is a state issue. As is the case for other contracts issued in the state, the state has jurisdiction for how it wants to issue marriage licenses among citizens in its own state. The state-law in question was not about who may have sex with whom, nor was it about whom you may freely associate (read as "date") with, and so was not targeting one group's civil rights.

The second set of arguments is about the federal DoMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law signed by then President Bill Clinton that states the federal definition of marriage (for all federal laws that mention marriage, like Social Security benefits, joint filing of federal income taxes, etc.) as being between one man and one woman. As being a proponent of states' rights, this part of the case I actually do agree with in that since it is the states that should dictate what they consider to be a valid marriage, then the federal laws should comply with those state laws. Only in cases outside the states where the federal government makes laws (eg in the District of Columbia and non-state territories) should the federal government be the one to define marriage for the sake of those instances.

So in some ways I do agree more with the proposed Respect for Marriage Act vs the DoMA law, except that RfMA states a marriage is considered valid by the federal government if it is valid in the state where the marriage was celebrated (and not necessarily the place of residence of the couple), which means a couple could make a destination-wedding to some state that allows homosexual marriage and be legally married by the federal government even if their home state does not allow such unions. I actually feel that this just makes it into some loophole and would feel better were it related to the couple's state of residency, however I do understand that if that were the case, then everytime a couple moved to a different state (whether they be homo- or hetero-sexual) they'd have to refile within that particular state for marriage, and as such RfMA is probably the most ideal in allowing states to dictate how they define marriage and leave the federal government out of it.

I also wouldn't actually mind if all instances of "marriage" in the laws were struck, requiring everyone to file explicit instructions for benefit survivorship, medical directives, etc. regardless of a person's relationship with another individual. And if two consenting adults want to live together, they'd have to file some type of civil union to direct the state what to do in the case of dissolution of that union (read as "divorce") in terms of property ownership, parental rights, etc. And perhaps if this were the case, then marriage within a religious context would automatically "fill in" these directives for the couple.

[Hurricanekiz]

Some people abuse it's meaning!

[Nancy5]

Times have  changed and gay people no longer have to hide.  I worked with two gay women (not each other's partner).  One couple has been together over 15 years, and the other couple over 20!  That's longer than some straight marriages that I know.  All four women are kind, caring people.  We have had them over to our house many times and they have invited my husband and myself to their homes as well.  I see no reason why each can't be on one another's insurance and why can't they marry.  Yes, they all four wear wedding bands and are committed but legally no.  I know there are some states that allow gay marriages, but PA is not one. 

[jmccaskill]

Not expressing an opinion on homosexualtiy as it would lead nowhere constructive, but the whole aspect of 'same sex marriage' and including that under the terms of 'legal marriage' is frought with problems that no one is addressing. The legal aspects of this, if made 'law' are huge and will be contining for decades to come. This matter is not as simple as 'who loves who' and has nothing to do with civil rights at all.

Do some serious research into this and I think you will be shocked at the ramifications of this complex subject. There is, like an iceberg, only a tiny fraction of the issue that is seen on the surface. 

[Flackle]

The religious have their own ceremonies, and they should be allowed to control how they want their ceremonies to run if and only if they don't infringe on the rights of others.

The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Laws banning any sort of marriage is a direct infringement on human rights, and we should criticize any state that decides to go that route. If you don't want gay people to marry, then support a church that doesn't marry gay people. Don't get the government to ban it for everyone.

[jmccaskill]

The religious have their own ceremonies, and they should be allowed to control how they want their ceremonies to run if and only if they don't infringe on the rights of others.

The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Laws banning any sort of marriage is a direct infringement on human rights, and we should criticize any state that decides to go that route. If you don't want gay people to marry, then support a church that doesn't marry gay people. Don't get the government to ban it for everyone.

Let us not confuse the issue, marriage is by definition simply stated the union of a man and a woman, period. That has been the established defintion since day one, in every society. Now, there is a matter of two distinct and in most respects aspects to marriage. One being a religous 'union' and the second is the legal contract that marriage brings with it. The two are separate and distinct.

As you state, one can opt to support or not support the religion aspects of the matter by associating with a like minded 'church'. However that in itself is NOT what this issue is about.

The civil aspect of this is pretty simple and need not be confused with the association of recognizing same sex unions as 'marriage'. What seems to be the main focus on this debate is abolishing the very definiton of marriage as it has been established since the beginning of mans existence, which as it is, the union of a man and a woman, exclusively. There is no reason that this matter could not be resolved with 'legalizing' civil unions for same sex parties, there is absolutely no need to extend that to being defined as 'marriage'. There are far too many ways for same sex partners to insure the 'rights' that marraige secures through the law even without the legalization of civil unions. Power or Attorney to each partner can be drawn that covers about 95% of those issues, and what it would not can be remedied in other ways that are every bit as binding. So, the matter is really one group trying to demand recognition/acceptance by changing the meaning of a single word. In reality, it is nothing more than that.

[cneimsn]

I think everyone should be able to marry and love whoever they wish.  Who are we to tell people how to live their lives?  This is a FREE Country, lets keep it that way!!!
Live and let live!

[Flackle]

The religious have their own ceremonies, and they should be allowed to control how they want their ceremonies to run if and only if they don't infringe on the rights of others.

The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Laws banning any sort of marriage is a direct infringement on human rights, and we should criticize any state that decides to go that route. If you don't want gay people to marry, then support a church that doesn't marry gay people. Don't get the government to ban it for everyone.

Let us not confuse the issue, marriage is by definition simply stated the union of a man and a woman, period. That has been the established defintion since day one, in every society. Now, there is a matter of two distinct and in most respects aspects to marriage. One being a religous 'union' and the second is the legal contract that marriage brings with it. The two are separate and distinct.

As you state, one can opt to support or not support the religion aspects of the matter by associating with a like minded 'church'. However that in itself is NOT what this issue is about.

The civil aspect of this is pretty simple and need not be confused with the association of recognizing same sex unions as 'marriage'. What seems to be the main focus on this debate is abolishing the very definiton of marriage as it has been established since the beginning of mans existence, which as it is, the union of a man and a woman, exclusively. There is no reason that this matter could not be resolved with 'legalizing' civil unions for same sex parties, there is absolutely no need to extend that to being defined as 'marriage'. There are far too many ways for same sex partners to insure the 'rights' that marraige secures through the law even without the legalization of civil unions. Power or Attorney to each partner can be drawn that covers about 95% of those issues, and what it would not can be remedied in other ways that are every bit as binding. So, the matter is really one group trying to demand recognition/acceptance by changing the meaning of a single word. In reality, it is nothing more than that.

Actually, it is more than that. The law in several states, as it stands now, bans the marriage between certain people. This is not a not a proper function of the government. It is not the governments job to define what is marriage. I am simply against the establishment of governing laws that prohibit the freedoms of others. Entering into a civil union is one of those basic freedoms.

You seem to believe that by getting rid of these laws, we are changing the definition of marriage. By legalizing civil unions between everyone, we are not changing the definition of religious marriage. We are getting government out of defining religious marriage entirely. If that happens to change the definition of marriage, then that's simply a consequence.

The debate isn't about homosexuals and other groups of people trying to hijack the definition of marriage. Its about getting rid of laws that specifically ban their freedom to marry each other and bans the freedom for religious groups to marry them. Again, this isn't a proper function of government.

I would also like evidence to support your premise than marriage has always been between a man a woman in every society that has ever existed since the beginning of humanity.