Is banning same-sex marriage fair?

[manifold]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

 

[Madeline]

manifold, dear, if we are to ignore constitutional, legal, rights-based discussions in addressing the Op....perhaps you can tell me what is left?

Applying the "all I need to know I learned in kindergarten" standard...no, it is not fair to deny the status of married people to gays. There is no rational basis for it, no one else's rights are impaired, and it hurts them.

Sorry, I said "rights". I can't get any closer to what you may want here.

 

[Sherry]

I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.

 

[Nosmo King]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

All the debate is about a state's position on same sex marriage. What churches want to do about sanctifying same sex marriage is up to the governing body of that church, not the government.

That being said, once we accept what marriage is in the eyes of the state, we would most certainly have to agree that it is not fair to deny same sex couples the protections and benefits of marriage.

The state sees marriage as a contract. The state even has special courts to dissolve that contract. If a contract affords the parties entering that contract certain benefits and rights, why would it be 'fair' to deny all of the citizens of a state the access to those benefits and rights?

 

[Luissa]

No. No one should ever be able to tell another person who they should marry.

 

[dilloduck]

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.

 

[Nosmo King]

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.

As a single person, I would disagree. The benefits of marriage include, but are not limited to, access to a spouse's health care benefits. I should not be allowed to abuse my health care provider by enrolling a live-in girlfriend. Another benefit of marriage is a tax-free assumption of property upon the death of a spouse. When two folks are married and one dies, the property transfer to the surviving spouse is seamless. A single person's estate could wind up in probate court for months or years if they die without a valid will.

 

[hjmick]

Is it "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" we're talking about? Personally, I'm not bothered by "gay marriage," there are bigger things to worry about, in my opinion. Now, if we're defining it simply as "same sex marriage," I ask you...

Does this mean two heterosexual men or women can marry?

 

[Modbert]

Is it "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" we're talking about? Personally, I'm not bothered by "gay marriage," there are bigger things to worry about, in my opinion. Now, if we're defining it simply as "same sex marriage," I ask you...

Does this mean two heterosexual men or women can marry?

Bromance.

 

[dilloduck]

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.

As a single person, I would disagree. The benefits of marriage include, but are not limited to, access to a spouse's health care benefits. I should not be allowed to abuse my health care provider by enrolling a live-in girlfriend. Another benefit of marriage is a tax-free assumption of property upon the death of a spouse. When two folks are married and one dies, the property transfer to the surviving spouse is seamless. A single person's estate could wind up in probate court for months or years if they die without a valid will.

Why should a significant other be denied health care benefits ? If you are aware of estate laws get a valid will. A much cleaner way of transferring property than getting married.

 

[dilloduck]

Is it "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" we're talking about? Personally, I'm not bothered by "gay marriage," there are bigger things to worry about, in my opinion. Now, if we're defining it simply as "same sex marriage," I ask you...

Does this mean two heterosexual men or women can marry?

Sure-----anything to get the bennies.

 

[manifold]

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.

such as?

 

[Luissa]

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.

As a single person, I would disagree. The benefits of marriage include, but are not limited to, access to a spouse's health care benefits. I should not be allowed to abuse my health care provider by enrolling a live-in girlfriend. Another benefit of marriage is a tax-free assumption of property upon the death of a spouse. When two folks are married and one dies, the property transfer to the surviving spouse is seamless. A single person's estate could wind up in probate court for months or years if they die without a valid will.

Why should a significant other be denied health care benefits ? If you are aware of estate laws get a valid will. A much cleaner way of transferring property than getting married.

When they passed civil unions here, it included everyone. I think one of the reasons it passed was the 60+ crowd.

 

[Luissa]

# The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
# Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
FactCheck.org: What Is a Civil Union?

 

[Nosmo King]

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.

As a single person, I would disagree. The benefits of marriage include, but are not limited to, access to a spouse's health care benefits. I should not be allowed to abuse my health care provider by enrolling a live-in girlfriend. Another benefit of marriage is a tax-free assumption of property upon the death of a spouse. When two folks are married and one dies, the property transfer to the surviving spouse is seamless. A single person's estate could wind up in probate court for months or years if they die without a valid will.

Why should a significant other be denied health care benefits ? If you are aware of estate laws get a valid will. A much cleaner way of transferring property than getting married.

A 'significant other' has no legal standing. A marriage contract results in the creation of a new legal entity.

While it may be argued that a same sex couple may enjoy all the protections and benefits of marriage by jumping through all manner of legal hoops, a heterosexual couple can enjoy these benefits and protections by getting married. Marriage contracts establish a new legal entity. The protections of this contract should not be obstructed simply because the parties willing to establish this contract are of the same sex.

 

[Jos]

Marriage is a contract between two people
Personaly I think the contract should be for a year, renewable by consent
Divorce lawyers wont like it

 

[Madeline]

The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married. For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property. If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.

I could go on and on. Point is, society at large has a need for formalized, ascertainable relationships between members of a family, especially partners in a marriage.

 

[Nosmo King]

The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married. For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property. If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.

I could go on and on. Point is, society at large has a need for formalized, ascertainable relationships between members of a family, especially partners in a marriage.

Not only that, but I think everyone could agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution with roots deep in social history.

What great societal good can come from denying the stability of marriage to those who desire it?

 

[dilloduck]

As a single person, I would disagree. The benefits of marriage include, but are not limited to, access to a spouse's health care benefits. I should not be allowed to abuse my health care provider by enrolling a live-in girlfriend. Another benefit of marriage is a tax-free assumption of property upon the death of a spouse. When two folks are married and one dies, the property transfer to the surviving spouse is seamless. A single person's estate could wind up in probate court for months or years if they die without a valid will.

Why should a significant other be denied health care benefits ? If you are aware of estate laws get a valid will. A much cleaner way of transferring property than getting married.

A 'significant other' has no legal standing. A marriage contract results in the creation of a new legal entity.

While it may be argued that a same sex couple may enjoy all the protections and benefits of marriage by jumping through all manner of legal hoops, a heterosexual couple can enjoy these benefits and protections by getting married. Marriage contracts establish a new legal entity. The protections of this contract should not be obstructed simply because the parties willing to establish this contract are of the same sex.

Should the benefits that marriage NOW entitle people to be obstructed by anything at all ?

 

[dilloduck]

The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married. For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property. If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.

I could go on and on. Point is, society at large has a need for formalized, ascertainable relationships between members of a family, especially partners in a marriage.

Not only that, but I think everyone could agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution with roots deep in social history.

What great societal good can come from denying the stability of marriage to those who desire it?

anyone---any --age---no restrictions ?