Is the partnership called marriage?
Would it result in them receiving tax breaks we give married couples?
If so...no.
If not, yes.
No one should get a tax break for being married.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is the partnership called marriage?
Would it result in them receiving tax breaks we give married couples?
If so...no.
If not, yes.
and if a couple has a "legally-recognized domestic partnership", then they are, by definition, indeed "married"...
True.
But then its incumbent upon the state to determine what word or words will be used to identify this union allowing the general public to respond accordingly. It might be called marriage, it might be called civil union, however both cant exist concurrently.
why not...?
To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
Brown v. Board of Education
No one should wear white loafers.
So?
Could someone please remind us all again why gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" more than "traditional marriage" threatens itself...?
We support, as a society, the structure that is most beneficial to us as a society. The structure that is best suited to produce productive, functional citizens is...brace yourself....the traditional, stable family unit, consisting of one mother and one father.
We, as a society, recognize that and offer people incentives for participating in that structure (which at its base consists of "marriage"...the union and subsequent recognition of said union, of male and female). We reward people for getting married by allowing them a few tax breaks and other incentives.
Any male and female can obtain the incentives if they participate in the construct.
But when we have to offer incentives to people, even though they aren't participating in the construct, suddenly there's no motivation to participate in the most successful foundation we have for a successful society, and the society itself, that is dependent upon the development of functional, productive members, begins to fall apart.
Are you taking notes?
We reward behavior that is proven most conducive to the production of self reliant, stable, successful people...and that behavior is "marriage". Anyone can be married...but they have to, in fact, be "married" which means they have to be taking part in the male/female construct that is "marriage" to gain the privileges of "marriage".
The traditional family is the most successful vehicle for raising children. It is the premier. That isn't to say homosexuals can't do it, or shouldn't. But we REWARD people for participating in the single construct that is most likely to result in success of the members (children), and we have a special name for them...they're "married".
True.
But then its incumbent upon the state to determine what word or words will be used to identify this union allowing the general public to respond accordingly. It might be called marriage, it might be called civil union, however both cant exist concurrently.
why not...?
Because to name a law civil union to appease those opposed to same sex couples accessing marriage law would still constitute an equal protection violation.
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court held that even if two groups are afforded identical access to a given public sector entity, and are held separately in those two equal entities, that such a separation remains un-Constitutional:
To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
Brown v. Board of Education
To be offensive to the Constitution the separation need not be physical alone, as any legal separation is just as offensive, however equal.
I don't have a problem with it.
Does this legally recognized domestic partnership allow the couples to receive things such as being able to file joint fed taxes, having their partner be beneficiary in a will, have the partners be able to have medical rights for what happens to their partner if they get sick, etc.?
I stated my opinion, and it is not for sale for any price.Because there is a point at which an open mind starts spilling all over the place. It is not a pretty sight.How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
<blinking and blinking>
Uh, "freedom", try this for size:
"Marriage is an institution called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.
The wording deserved what it got. Next time, say what ya mean, dear.Do U support the right of any 2 people to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership ?
simple poll... yeah or nay...
comments welcomed...
Key word "any".
So...no. Of course not. If one of the two was eight years old and the other was 50, hell no.
oops... shoulda put "adult" instead of "people"...
some folks will of course put the worst possible spin on the question...
Not exactly. Michael Devlin took advantage of Shawn Hornbeck for 4 years in a homosexual partnership and is now serving 72 life sentences plus 170 years.There's nothing stopping gays now from forming a domestic partnership or any kind of partnership they want to form. In states that recognize civil union partnerships they can form civil partnerships with exactly the same kind of rights and obligations that married people have.
In the beginning, only same sex couples could have domestic partnerships, That was changed after a year to allow domestic partnerships among those over 65. Now anyone can register as a domestic partnership. There is little difference between a domestic partnership and marriage, in those states that permit them.
Not exactly. Michael Devlin took advantage of Shawn Hornbeck for 4 years in a homosexual partnership and is now serving 72 life sentences plus 170 years.There's nothing stopping gays now from forming a domestic partnership or any kind of partnership they want to form. In states that recognize civil union partnerships they can form civil partnerships with exactly the same kind of rights and obligations that married people have.
In the beginning, only same sex couples could have domestic partnerships, That was changed after a year to allow domestic partnerships among those over 65. Now anyone can register as a domestic partnership. There is little difference between a domestic partnership and marriage, in those states that permit them.
I don't think there is enough evidence to support your conclusion. A "traditional" family is what was thought to be the normal family unit. It consists of a mother and a father of opposite sexes in traditional gender roles, married and living in the same house with their 2 or 3 children. The traditional family today accounts for only 7% of the households.Could someone please remind us all again why gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" more than "traditional marriage" threatens itself...?
We support, as a society, the structure that is most beneficial to us as a society. The structure that is best suited to produce productive, functional citizens is...brace yourself....the traditional, stable family unit, consisting of one mother and one father.
We, as a society, recognize that and offer people incentives for participating in that structure (which at its base consists of "marriage"...the union and subsequent recognition of said union, of male and female). We reward people for getting married by allowing them a few tax breaks and other incentives.
Any male and female can obtain the incentives if they participate in the construct.
But when we have to offer incentives to people, even though they aren't participating in the construct, suddenly there's no motivation to participate in the most successful foundation we have for a successful society, and the society itself, that is dependent upon the development of functional, productive members, begins to fall apart.
Are you taking notes?
We reward behavior that is proven most conducive to the production of self reliant, stable, successful people...and that behavior is "marriage". Anyone can be married...but they have to, in fact, be "married" which means they have to be taking part in the male/female construct that is "marriage" to gain the privileges of "marriage".
The traditional family is the most successful vehicle for raising children. It is the premier. That isn't to say homosexuals can't do it, or shouldn't. But we REWARD people for participating in the single construct that is most likely to result in success of the members (children), and we have a special name for them...they're "married".