One step forward, two steps back for Republicans: Boehner and DoMA

[Bern80]

When did homosexuals become "the masses?"

The masses are not just homosexuals. They are people who don't see the point in fighting this fight. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, straight or gay. Many of the masses even on the right and even those who aren't gay, oppose bigotry no matter what form it takes

Agree...let people marry the person that they love

If people feel that the state has any business in legally recognizing marriage, it needs to be an all or nothing thing due to the legal ramifications.

I remember a fictional spin on this issue on the tv show Boston Legal. These two lawyers played by William Shatner and James Spader wanted to get married. Not because either of them were gay, it was more of a best friends kind of love, but for the legal protections and benefits provided to those who are legally recognized as married. I thought it was a good point. Not only should the state not be recognizing marriage on the basis which gender wants to marry which gender. I'm not sure they should only get to recognize for people that are romantically in love. It's really nothing more than a business arrangment from a legal perspective. So why shouldn't any two (or 3 or 4?) people be allowed to enter into it for the benefits? You can see how ridiculous this could get. Which is why of the two extremes, recognizing any and everyone(s) or recognizing no one, government ought to move toward the later.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A civil union is required in all states, that I know of. You wanna be hitched in the eyes of the law you have to pony up the dough. Seems abusive to me, but each state has the right to regulate itself.

Has anyone ever met anyone that got common lawed? 2 people that lived together so long the state considered the married?

yup
i've known a few

hell, last i knew, the law in TX was so open that if you checked into a hotel/motel for a weekend as husband and wife it was enough to get common law marriage

In (Conn, I think) If you declared yourself wedded at any time, for any reason, you were hitched. I knew of (not personnally) people that ended up "married" b/c one of them claimed Head of Household on taxes, just to get a few bucks back.

rumor of course. "I heard about this one guy...."

States and Common Law Marriage -> Common Law Marriage


The list is relatively short, especially when you look at the notes and subtract the states that don't allow new common-law marriages.




I found this piece funny...

"The U.S. Constitution requires every state to accord "full faith and credit" to the laws of its sister states. Thus, a common-law marriage that is validly contracted in a state where such marriages are legal will be valid even in states where such marriages cannot be contracted and may be contrary to public policy."​

One state required to recognize a Civil Marriage from another state when that marriage is illegal in the new state. THE BASTARDS!




>>>>

 

[Dr.Drock]

So Republicans make these huge gains in the last election based on what appears to be the sentiment by many that government is simply getting to big and spending too much. Should have told republicans it's time to work on shrinking government, right?

So what does Boehner in his infinite wisdom decide to make a priority? the Defense of Marriage Act. Are you kidding? Why don't you just head out back, shoot yourself in the foot instead, and call it even. Talk about stupid strategy. You aren't going to win over the masses with that one. I guess they are content to remain the part of old, conservative (small c) white people.

When did homosexuals become "the masses?"

The masses are not just homosexuals. They are people who don't see the point in fighting this fight. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, straight or gay. Many of the masses even on the right and even those who aren't gay, oppose bigotry no matter what form it takes

Great post.

Government shouldn't be in any marriage. If someone wants a religious wedding it should be up to the church or religious venue's choice. If they don't want to marry a straight couple because the guy has a criminal record, or a gay couple because they're gay or a poor couple cuz they don't pay enough in fees that should be their choice as well as whether or not they want to marry those couples.

Let's get government all the way out of religion. Let the leaders and followers of the religions run them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When did homosexuals become "the masses?"

The masses are not just homosexuals. They are people who don't see the point in fighting this fight. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, straight or gay. Many of the masses even on the right and even those who aren't gay, oppose bigotry no matter what form it takes

Great post.

Government shouldn't be in any marriage. If someone wants a religious wedding it should be up to the church or religious venue's choice. If they don't want to marry a straight couple because the guy has a criminal record, or a gay couple because they're gay or a poor couple cuz they don't pay enough in fees that should be their choice as well as whether or not they want to marry those couples.

Let's get government all the way out of religion. Let the leaders and followers of the religions run them.

So let me ask a question since you say "Government shouldn't be in any marriage." While on active duty my wife was my dependent. Because of that she was eligible to receive health care through the military and when I was transferred over seas she was allowed to accompany me during my multi-year tours. She sacrificed a lot during those years and if I die, she will be able to receive part of my retirement.

So how is the government supposed to recognize such situations?



If anyone can go to the government and just announce they are married, then chaos will result.

If you mean you are going have the government denying ANY recognition of marriage then chaos will result.



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

The masses are not just homosexuals. They are people who don't see the point in fighting this fight. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, straight or gay. Many of the masses even on the right and even those who aren't gay, oppose bigotry no matter what form it takes

Agree...let people marry the person that they love

If people feel that the state has any business in legally recognizing marriage, it needs to be an all or nothing thing due to the legal ramifications.

I remember a fictional spin on this issue on the tv show Boston Legal. These two lawyers played by William Shatner and James Spader wanted to get married. Not because either of them were gay, it was more of a best friends kind of love, but for the legal protections and benefits provided to those who are legally recognized as married. I thought it was a good point. Not only should the state not be recognizing marriage on the basis which gender wants to marry which gender. I'm not sure they should only get to recognize for people that are romantically in love. It's really nothing more than a business arrangment from a legal perspective. So why shouldn't any two (or 3 or 4?) people be allowed to enter into it for the benefits? You can see how ridiculous this could get. Which is why of the two extremes, recognizing any and everyone(s) or recognizing no one, government ought to move toward the later.

I don't really think it is the states business one way or the other. It is not up to them to follow you into the bedroom and it is not up to them to figure out how much you really love the other person.

If three consenting adults or ten consenting adults want to form a legal bond...Let them

Its not my business

 

[DiveCon]

Agree...let people marry the person that they love

If people feel that the state has any business in legally recognizing marriage, it needs to be an all or nothing thing due to the legal ramifications.

I remember a fictional spin on this issue on the tv show Boston Legal. These two lawyers played by William Shatner and James Spader wanted to get married. Not because either of them were gay, it was more of a best friends kind of love, but for the legal protections and benefits provided to those who are legally recognized as married. I thought it was a good point. Not only should the state not be recognizing marriage on the basis which gender wants to marry which gender. I'm not sure they should only get to recognize for people that are romantically in love. It's really nothing more than a business arrangment from a legal perspective. So why shouldn't any two (or 3 or 4?) people be allowed to enter into it for the benefits? You can see how ridiculous this could get. Which is why of the two extremes, recognizing any and everyone(s) or recognizing no one, government ought to move toward the later.

I don't really think it is the states business one way or the other. It is not up to them to follow you into the bedroom and it is not up to them to figure out how much you really love the other person.

If three consenting adults or ten consenting adults want to form a legal bond...Let them

Its not my business

on this we agree

however, i would seriously question the sanity of someone that wants more than one partner

 

[rightwinger]

If people feel that the state has any business in legally recognizing marriage, it needs to be an all or nothing thing due to the legal ramifications.

I remember a fictional spin on this issue on the tv show Boston Legal. These two lawyers played by William Shatner and James Spader wanted to get married. Not because either of them were gay, it was more of a best friends kind of love, but for the legal protections and benefits provided to those who are legally recognized as married. I thought it was a good point. Not only should the state not be recognizing marriage on the basis which gender wants to marry which gender. I'm not sure they should only get to recognize for people that are romantically in love. It's really nothing more than a business arrangment from a legal perspective. So why shouldn't any two (or 3 or 4?) people be allowed to enter into it for the benefits? You can see how ridiculous this could get. Which is why of the two extremes, recognizing any and everyone(s) or recognizing no one, government ought to move toward the later.

I don't really think it is the states business one way or the other. It is not up to them to follow you into the bedroom and it is not up to them to figure out how much you really love the other person.

If three consenting adults or ten consenting adults want to form a legal bond...Let them

Its not my business

on this we agree

however, i would seriously question the sanity of someone that wants more than one partner

On that we agree

It is not just sex.....the sex part is easy

But women demand so much emotional support. I could never keep up with it

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't really think it is the states business one way or the other. It is not up to them to follow you into the bedroom and it is not up to them to figure out how much you really love the other person.

If three consenting adults or ten consenting adults want to form a legal bond...Let them

Its not my business

on this we agree

however, i would seriously question the sanity of someone that wants more than one partner

On that we agree

It is not just sex.....the sex part is easy

But women demand so much emotional support. I could never keep up with it[/QUOTE]

Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Bern80]

The masses are not just homosexuals. They are people who don't see the point in fighting this fight. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, straight or gay. Many of the masses even on the right and even those who aren't gay, oppose bigotry no matter what form it takes

Great post.

Government shouldn't be in any marriage. If someone wants a religious wedding it should be up to the church or religious venue's choice. If they don't want to marry a straight couple because the guy has a criminal record, or a gay couple because they're gay or a poor couple cuz they don't pay enough in fees that should be their choice as well as whether or not they want to marry those couples.

Let's get government all the way out of religion. Let the leaders and followers of the religions run them.

So let me ask a question since you say "Government shouldn't be in any marriage." While on active duty my wife was my dependent. Because of that she was eligible to receive health care through the military and when I was transferred over seas she was allowed to accompany me during my multi-year tours. She sacrificed a lot during those years and if I die, she will be able to receive part of my retirement.

So how is the government supposed to recognize such situations?



If anyone can go to the government and just announce they are married, then chaos will result.

If you mean you are going have the government denying ANY recognition of marriage then chaos will result.



>>>>

There would be no such chaos. Declare whomever the heck you want as a dependent. I don't see what marriage should have to do with that.

 

[DiveCon]

Great post.

Government shouldn't be in any marriage. If someone wants a religious wedding it should be up to the church or religious venue's choice. If they don't want to marry a straight couple because the guy has a criminal record, or a gay couple because they're gay or a poor couple cuz they don't pay enough in fees that should be their choice as well as whether or not they want to marry those couples.

Let's get government all the way out of religion. Let the leaders and followers of the religions run them.

So let me ask a question since you say "Government shouldn't be in any marriage." While on active duty my wife was my dependent. Because of that she was eligible to receive health care through the military and when I was transferred over seas she was allowed to accompany me during my multi-year tours. She sacrificed a lot during those years and if I die, she will be able to receive part of my retirement.

So how is the government supposed to recognize such situations?



If anyone can go to the government and just announce they are married, then chaos will result.

If you mean you are going have the government denying ANY recognition of marriage then chaos will result.



>>>>

There would be no such chaos. Declare whomever the heck you want as a dependent. I don't see what marriage should have to do with that.

exactly
if you are allowed to add one(or more) people to your coverage, and you are willing to pay the cost, what matter should it make WHO it is

 

[WorldWatcher]

So let me ask a question since you say "Government shouldn't be in any marriage." While on active duty my wife was my dependent. Because of that she was eligible to receive health care through the military and when I was transferred over seas she was allowed to accompany me during my multi-year tours. She sacrificed a lot during those years and if I die, she will be able to receive part of my retirement.

So how is the government supposed to recognize such situations?



If anyone can go to the government and just announce they are married, then chaos will result.

If you mean you are going have the government denying ANY recognition of marriage then chaos will result.



>>>>

There would be no such chaos. Declare whomever the heck you want as a dependent. I don't see what marriage should have to do with that.

exactly
if you are allowed to add one(or more) people to your coverage, and you are willing to pay the cost, what matter should it make WHO it is

Health insurance "coverage" is provided as part of military service, there are no costs to participate to members and their dependents.

So 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

 

[DiveCon]

There would be no such chaos. Declare whomever the heck you want as a dependent. I don't see what marriage should have to do with that.

exactly
if you are allowed to add one(or more) people to your coverage, and you are willing to pay the cost, what matter should it make WHO it is

Health insurance "coverage" is provided as part of military service, there are no costs to participate to members and their dependents.

So 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

all that would transfer to a civil union contract

 

[WorldWatcher]

exactly
if you are allowed to add one(or more) people to your coverage, and you are willing to pay the cost, what matter should it make WHO it is

Health insurance "coverage" is provided as part of military service, there are no costs to participate to members and their dependents.

So 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

all that would transfer to a civil union contract

Ah, so there would still be civil marriage, we'd just change the name.


OK, I can buy that not causing the same degree of choas as getting the government out of marriage, which sounded more like ending the practice of government recognizing the need to establish non-blood family relationships.



>>>>

 

[DiveCon]

Health insurance "coverage" is provided as part of military service, there are no costs to participate to members and their dependents.

So 1138 federal laws (as per the last known CBO estimate) that involve the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. So lets just run through a couple of examples...

As a retired military member my wife is part of the Survivor Benefit Plan which provides that if I die before her she will continue to draw a percentage of my retirement to care for her after the hardships of being a military spouse.

Social Security Provides that for married spouses that the surviving spouse, at retirement age, can draw the higher amount of either their own SS benefit or their spouses.

Tax law provides for tax free transfer of property to a spouse free of estate and gift taxes.

Tax law provides that an individuals estate sales exemption is $250,000 and $500,000 for a married couple - which makes sense. However a surviving spouse can continue to claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse for the sale of their joint home.

The spouse of a veteran can be buried next to their loved one in a veterans cemetery.

Then there is the Family Medical Leave Act that guarantees a spouse can take unpaid leave to care for their spouse in the event of a serious illness.

The ability of a spouse to sue a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.

Claiming the marital communications privilege which means a court cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Then there is accelerated naturalization for someone married to a foreign national.

The legal right to visit and make medical decisions for a spouse recognized based on family status recognized under law in all 50 states (which cannot be duplicated with a Medical Power of Attorney which (a) can expire and (b) might not be recognized outside the issuing jurisdiction.​

Once what "getting government out of marriage" truly means is recognized, there will be no great ground swell of opinion to - well - get government out of marriage.



>>>>

all that would transfer to a civil union contract

Ah, so there would still be civil marriage, we'd just change the name.


OK, I can buy that not causing the same degree of choas as getting the government out of marriage, which sounded more like ending the practice of government recognizing the need to establish non-blood family relationships.



>>>>

yes, see, marriage would then only be a religious ceremony and have no legal bering on anything
if you want those legal rights, you would need to get a civil union contract

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes, see, marriage would then only be a religious ceremony and have no legal bering on anything
if you want those legal rights, you would need to get a civil union contract

OK, I can hang with that. I misunderstood the original premise.



>>>>

 

[Two Thumbs]

What's with the socialists paid posters this week?

This is the 3rd hit and run post this week.