gay marriage

I agree, "Exactly."

One of my former jobs was with a company that provided superb dependent benefits - only you had to be married. The only requirement was that you show a marriage certificate. I knew several coworkers who changed their dependent registration about once a year, and one who had 5 different husbands in a 4 year period. The anti-gay groups think that's less than ideal, but still better than two queers together for a couple of decades.

They eventually included "partnerships" in the benefits package, but the proof was a little different. Partnerships required (I don't know if I remember all of it...) proof of living together for at least a year, a utility bill with both names on it, a joint bank account, and a six-month waiting period after registration before benefits kicked in. For the legally married couples, the marriage certificate was the only proof, and benefits were immediate.

Gay Marriage?

Why the desire to be so middle class?

Isn't it more fun to live in sin?

Honestly, you haven't read the thread, have you?

My desire has nothing at all to do with the social/societal aspects of marriage, and everything to do with the legal/financial aspects...

Chosen few? Straight couples who decide to marry are a minority now? I understand your point, but it is an odd choice of words.

That might be a good idea!

In France there is no gay 'marriage' - since 1998 there has been a contract (PACS Pacte civil de solidarité - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) allowing any couple, regardless of sex and orientation, to make a civil and financial union - covering pensions, tax allowances, inheritence and similar. Plantonic couples also use it. It is slightly less child oriented than the 'acte de marriage' but since its introduction that has slowly improved. It appears more couples of all types are choosing PACS ahead of marriage.

I freely admit I have had my reservations about gay marriage over the years - but I've never found a reasonable argument against it. Not one that isn't based on some kind of prejudice about gay people being unfit parents or some such bollox. So I put my reservations down to social conditioning and ignore them. Equality is equality - you can't start adding clauses, it doesn't work like that.

I may not have read the entire thread but you missed my point, laws are for the middle class.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Marriage isn't middle class, since the poor straights and rich straights, as well as the middle class straights all have the right to marriage. It's not about getting married, it's about having the right to and the option to like everyone else. If you want to "live in sin" by all means do so, but do it because you choose to, not because you don't have the right to live any other way.

So if I'm getting your point now, then only middle-class are bound by law? Armed robbery and murder are legal for rich & poor folks, but only illegal for middle class people? I wanna move to wherever you live!

My husband and I were having a conversation about gay marriages last night. (Probably brought on by me reading this thread.) My husband has several employees that we have attended their committment ceromonies. My husband was basically saying the same thing DC Deep was saying.....that the government basically needs to get out of the marriage business (defining legallally recognized marriages.....) and leave it to the churches to decide. But it is kind of a catch 22 because the federal government needs some kind of criteria to use to assign or dole out benefits.

Personally I don't see what is wrong with having domestic partnerships. If it has the same legal benefits what is in a name?

The argument that I see is how all the religious conservatives define marriage......and they state it is a union between a man and a woman. And I am sure their basis is procreation.

Personally I believe that people ought to be able to be with whoever they want to be with.

The problem is that the government IS in the marriage business, as long as it provides tax incentives to married people. That ain't gonna change. Ever. Until gay marriages are federally recognized, that's discrimination.

I hear where you're coming from on this, but still, separate but equal is hardly equal. How would you feel if the man you wanted to marry was of another race, and the government would only let you call it a domestic partnership?

From what I understand this used to be an issue.....people were not allowed to marry outside of their race. And it is hard for me to put myself in that situation because of my upbringing and because I am a female. I was raised in the bible belt and I was very over protected.....and there were a lot of predudiced people there. My family (grandfather) included. I am not sure how I ended up not having a predjudice bone in my body. Anyways, all I had to do was walk down the street or talk to a person of a different race in the presence of my grandfather and I wouldn't ever hear the end of it.

Add to that that I am a freaking rule follower. Always have been. And my daughter is too.

Anyways, I understand your point mcjp......

I just wanted to express my gut feeling. I am not really into politics.....but this is my gut feeling on the gay marriage issue.

I think the white conservative Christian males who define marriage as an institution or union of a male and female.....are doing so because they think they are somehow protecting the benefits of stay at home moms and young children. There will probably come a day when even stay at home moms won't qualify for spouses benefits. After the kids are a certain age she will have to get out and get a job and get her own benefits. Anyways this is just some of the talk that I have heard from conservative Christian friends.

So this is kind of how the opposition to federally legalizing gay marriage is kind of kept on fire. And it is preached at the churches. Talked about at the social picnics.

It is kind of hard to change religious peoples way of thinking.

That is why I was thinking changing the name would be a good compromise and gays might get what they want a lot faster federally with the domestic partnerships.

Anyways that is my 2 cents and gut instincts.

I think that heterosexual men who want to define marriage as between a man and a woman feel that way because of an innate and natural disgust at homosexual activity between men.

I know, I know, but otherwise why would homophobia be so widespread? Why would only 7 legislatures in the world, including Cali and Mass., allow gay marriage? It surely can't be entirely 'nurture'- there must be some 'nature' in there as well.

I'm sorry if this offends. It's a sad idea but I think it's true.

Also, to imply that it is only white, christian males who are against gay marriage is extremely inaccurate. As I stated- only 7 legislatures in the world allow it. at least 4 of them are, in conventional terms, dominated by white christian male policies. Obviously, of course, the desire to keep marriage (and anything) "as-is" is a conservative ideal.

The problem is that the Federal Government knows and recognizes what a "marriage" is and confer MANY benefits to people who are married. According to the federal government there is no such thing as a civil union.

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands

South Africa
Spain
California
Massachusetts

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the benefits conveyed to straight childless married couples have to do with survivorship and inheritance. And although it is automatic in straight marriage many many gay couples have similar protections through forming living trusts.

As a side note I read somewhere that divorce rates for gay marriages are the same with those of straight couples. I guess equality works at both ends too.

Gays couples when separating seem to just work things out between themselves and have escaped the negative aspects of marriage and the accompanying legal responsibilities all these years, alimony, communal division of property, child support...etc. I wonder if some gay men will regret they even asked for gay marriage. A coup and boom for divorce lawyers, most definitely.

Very good point Earllogjam, totally agree

Me and my partner love each immensley and been together a long time now, Gay marriage is not for us, not against it, don't disagree with it, just really happy with how we are, all properties, wills, NOK sorted out legally, funerals and families etc,