61% of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage

[Politico]

Marriage should simply disappear as a State matter. Marriage should be left to the church where it belongs.

Would mind explaining a little more clearly what you mean by this statement to prevent confusion?

Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?




>>>>

The government shouldn't be recognizing shit. Their job should be filing the paperwork.

 

[jasonnfree]

So much for the bigotry or homogenous thinking on in the GOP!

I welcome this since I view myself as a conservative who supports gay marriage!

Gay marriage being legal in every state is inevitable. I'd say 20 years max.

To my conservative friends who oppose; stop fighting it and use the resources and time you do have doing something worthwhile (like fixing the economy).

Of course it will. Judges and morally bankrupt legislators will impose it on an unwilling public. The consequences won't be very good. Start spending resources on protecting the rights of those who do not want to participate in gay marriage and get an early start on fighting pedophiles. That's the next fight.

"Spend resources on protecting the rights of those who do not want to participate in gay marriage." You just said. So you think we will be forced to participate in gay marriage? Will we get to choose our partners or will it be a lottery system I wonder.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So much for the bigotry or homogenous thinking on in the GOP!

I welcome this since I view myself as a conservative who supports gay marriage!

It’s likely already been pointed out why the premise of your thread fails, but what the heck:

Democrats and Republicans remain on opposite sides of the issue, with 69% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents favoring same-sex marriage compared with 39% Republicans and Republican leaners.

Young Republicans favor same-sex marriage | Pew Research Center

Consequently, with 61 percent of republicans overall opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples, the GOP is still the champion of hate and ignorance.

But yes, it’s good to know that within the next 20 years or so this ignorance and hate will be a thing of the past.

 

[Pop23]

Not speaking for Pops but I think he means the government only issues civil unions (or something like that) - to legally join any two adults who want to get one (same sex/opposite sex), and then leave "marriage" to be defined privately.

Yep

OK, as long as that applies equally I could agree to that. Everyone would still call it marriage anyway and in a generation or two they'd just be merged back together anyway.

But I could get on board with that idea.


>>>>

I wouldn't care what the individuals within the arrangement called it, it's simply a contractual arrangement. Not really that much different then forming an LLC.

 

[Pop23]

Why... uh... would you want to do a civil union with your grandfather?

Does it really matter?

Exactly. Once you kick the barn door open for LGBTers to "civil marry" [think about the mechanics behind LGBT] would you really be squeamish about my theoretical arrangement? On what grounds? That' it's icky?

Plus, hey, grandpa is loaded with cash. Who wouldn't be "in love"... I hope my points are being made...

Your mistake is bringing love into this. There is no qualification for love in a contract, it would be impossible to enforce as there is no true love test known.

 

[bodecea]

Why... uh... would you want to do a civil union with your grandfather?

Does it really matter?

Exactly. Once you kick the barn door open for LGBTers to "civil marry" [think about the mechanics behind LGBT] would you really be squeamish about my theoretical arrangement? On what grounds? That' it's icky?

Plus, hey, grandpa is loaded with cash. Who wouldn't be "in love"... I hope my points are being made...

That you love your grandpa for his money....yes. Your point has been made.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage should simply disappear as a State matter. Marriage should be left to the church where it belongs.

Would mind explaining a little more clearly what you mean by this statement to prevent confusion?

Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?




>>>>

The government shouldn't be recognizing shit. Their job should be filing the paperwork.

On one hand, processing the marriage license is "filing the paperwork". With the filing of that paperwork there comes a whole host of rights, responsibilities and benefits.

On the other hand you say the government shouldn't "recognize shit", OK let's see what that means...

1. No "Married Filing Jointly" on tax returns. For a married couple that means each individual files as "Single" and gets only the deduction for themselves. When one spouse works and the other doesn't that is a significant tax increase (different tax base and lack of deduction).

2. Currently spouses can transfer real property between themselves with no tax liabilities, since there would be no government recognition that means such a transfer would either be income to the receiving spouse (subject to income tax) or subject to taxation as a gift.

3. Since there would be no government recognition of a spouse, there would be no exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.) With no spousal recognition the surviving spouse is legally single and would have to pay tax on anything over the single exemption.

4. Since there is no recognition of a spouse, spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution would be eliminated.

5. Sincere there would be no spousal recognition, a spouse could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

6. Since there would be no spousal recognition, there would no longer be "fatherhood" at birth which currently occurs under each states parentage laws. (For a child born to a married couple they are automatically legal parents.) The father (i.e. spouse) would then have to spend hundreds if not thousands in adoption and lawyer/court fees to adopt his own child.

7. Since there is no "spouse" which establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before the relationship would not be recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

8. Sine there is no recognition of "spouse", employer provided health insurance to non-dependents (someone not a spouse or child) becomes taxable (which currently happens to same-sex couples) becomes taxable as income.

9. Since there would be no recognition of spouse under Social Security then the surviving spouse can receive no benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

10. Since there would be no recognition of "spouse", there would be no preferential family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

11. Since there would be no recognition of "spouse", other family members become the default inheritor (or can challenge the will). It allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.

12. With no "spouse" recognition that means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no command sponsorship for a spouse overseas etc... If there is no Civil Marriage/Union, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

***************************************


Ya, go ahead and explain to all us heterosexual couples. Government recognition was just find when it was just us, but OMG, if "the gheys" want to be recognized - OH NO!!! We will cut off everyone's nose just because a number of people are butthurt about the gheys.

My wife have built a family for close to 30 years together. The most important aspect of our lives is that we love and respect each other and have built a life together for ourselves and our children. We've bought a house together, we've plan our retirement together, we have prepared so that if something happens to either one of us the other is taken care of. But because of the gays that plan is to become shredded so that more of out property gets turned over to the government? No thanks.



>>>>

 

[Politico]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

 

[Pop23]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

 

[Pop23]

Would mind explaining a little more clearly what you mean by this statement to prevent confusion?

Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?




>>>>

The government shouldn't be recognizing shit. Their job should be filing the paperwork.

On one hand, processing the marriage license is "filing the paperwork". With the filing of that paperwork there comes a whole host of rights, responsibilities and benefits.

On the other hand you say the government shouldn't "recognize shit", OK let's see what that means...

1. No "Married Filing Jointly" on tax returns. For a married couple that means each individual files as "Single" and gets only the deduction for themselves. When one spouse works and the other doesn't that is a significant tax increase (different tax base and lack of deduction).

2. Currently spouses can transfer real property between themselves with no tax liabilities, since there would be no government recognition that means such a transfer would either be income to the receiving spouse (subject to income tax) or subject to taxation as a gift.

3. Since there would be no government recognition of a spouse, there would be no exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.) With no spousal recognition the surviving spouse is legally single and would have to pay tax on anything over the single exemption.

4. Since there is no recognition of a spouse, spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution would be eliminated.

5. Sincere there would be no spousal recognition, a spouse could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

6. Since there would be no spousal recognition, there would no longer be "fatherhood" at birth which currently occurs under each states parentage laws. (For a child born to a married couple they are automatically legal parents.) The father (i.e. spouse) would then have to spend hundreds if not thousands in adoption and lawyer/court fees to adopt his own child.

7. Since there is no "spouse" which establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before the relationship would not be recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

8. Sine there is no recognition of "spouse", employer provided health insurance to non-dependents (someone not a spouse or child) becomes taxable (which currently happens to same-sex couples) becomes taxable as income.

9. Since there would be no recognition of spouse under Social Security then the surviving spouse can receive no benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

10. Since there would be no recognition of "spouse", there would be no preferential family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

11. Since there would be no recognition of "spouse", other family members become the default inheritor (or can challenge the will). It allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.

12. With no "spouse" recognition that means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no command sponsorship for a spouse overseas etc... If there is no Civil Marriage/Union, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

***************************************


Ya, go ahead and explain to all us heterosexual couples. Government recognition was just find when it was just us, but OMG, if "the gheys" want to be recognized - OH NO!!! We will cut off everyone's nose just because a number of people are butthurt about the gheys.

My wife have built a family for close to 30 years together. The most important aspect of our lives is that we love and respect each other and have built a life together for ourselves and our children. We've bought a house together, we've plan our retirement together, we have prepared so that if something happens to either one of us the other is taken care of. But because of the gays that plan is to become shredded so that more of out property gets turned over to the government? No thanks.



>>>>

Just make it part of the civil union. Let the state come up with the detail, likely as you wrote (although, I actually never read it all, so if you wrote anything like putting nails in each other's heads, I would probably disagree)

But, in reality, it's simply a contract uniting individuals.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

Sorry dude, you are the one that said "The government shouldn't be recognizing shit..."

All those things I listed are because the government DOES recognize the Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

Contracts can define the stipulations between the individuals, not the point.

Those things I listed are not available to people just be sitting down and signing a contract, they require government recognition of Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The government shouldn't be recognizing shit. Their job should be filing the paperwork.

On one hand, processing the marriage license is "filing the paperwork". With the filing of that paperwork there comes a whole host of rights, responsibilities and benefits.

On the other hand you say the government shouldn't "recognize shit", OK let's see what that means...

1. No "Married Filing Jointly" on tax returns. For a married couple that means each individual files as "Single" and gets only the deduction for themselves. When one spouse works and the other doesn't that is a significant tax increase (different tax base and lack of deduction).

2. Currently spouses can transfer real property between themselves with no tax liabilities, since there would be no government recognition that means such a transfer would either be income to the receiving spouse (subject to income tax) or subject to taxation as a gift.

3. Since there would be no government recognition of a spouse, there would be no exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.) With no spousal recognition the surviving spouse is legally single and would have to pay tax on anything over the single exemption.

4. Since there is no recognition of a spouse, spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution would be eliminated.

5. Sincere there would be no spousal recognition, a spouse could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

6. Since there would be no spousal recognition, there would no longer be "fatherhood" at birth which currently occurs under each states parentage laws. (For a child born to a married couple they are automatically legal parents.) The father (i.e. spouse) would then have to spend hundreds if not thousands in adoption and lawyer/court fees to adopt his own child.

7. Since there is no "spouse" which establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before the relationship would not be recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

8. Sine there is no recognition of "spouse", employer provided health insurance to non-dependents (someone not a spouse or child) becomes taxable (which currently happens to same-sex couples) becomes taxable as income.

9. Since there would be no recognition of spouse under Social Security then the surviving spouse can receive no benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

10. Since there would be no recognition of "spouse", there would be no preferential family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

11. Since there would be no recognition of "spouse", other family members become the default inheritor (or can challenge the will). It allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.

12. With no "spouse" recognition that means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no command sponsorship for a spouse overseas etc... If there is no Civil Marriage/Union, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

***************************************


Ya, go ahead and explain to all us heterosexual couples. Government recognition was just find when it was just us, but OMG, if "the gheys" want to be recognized - OH NO!!! We will cut off everyone's nose just because a number of people are butthurt about the gheys.

My wife have built a family for close to 30 years together. The most important aspect of our lives is that we love and respect each other and have built a life together for ourselves and our children. We've bought a house together, we've plan our retirement together, we have prepared so that if something happens to either one of us the other is taken care of. But because of the gays that plan is to become shredded so that more of out property gets turned over to the government? No thanks.



>>>>

Just make it part of the civil union. Let the state come up with the detail, likely as you wrote (although, I actually never read it all, so if you wrote anything like putting nails in each other's heads, I would probably disagree)

But, in reality, it's simply a contract uniting individuals.

The individual I responded to said "The government shouldn't be recognizing shit...", that means they wouldn't be recognizing Civil Unions either. This is not a contract just uniting the individuals, it has to do with the rights, responsibilities, and benefits contained in the government (i.e. the 3rd party) recognition of that contract.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

Contracts can define the stipulations between the individuals, not the point.

Those things I listed are not available to people just be sitting down and signing a contract, they require government recognition of Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Perhaps I wasn't clear then. All those benefits, being duly noted in law by the state, become part of the unification agreement.

The State then simply insures that the parties are of adequate age, of sound mind and are in agreement.

Done deal

 

[bodecea]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

For a great deal more lawyer time and money....AND...not required to be recognized thru-out all the states. Is this what you really want....just so gays can't have marriage?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

Contracts can define the stipulations between the individuals, not the point.

Those things I listed are not available to people just be sitting down and signing a contract, they require government recognition of Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Perhaps I wasn't clear then. All those benefits, being duly noted in law by the state, become part of the unification agreement.

The State then simply insures that the parties are of adequate age, of sound mind and are in agreement.

Done deal

There are two conversations going and there are wires being crossed. I understood what you said - it basically take Civil Marriage turns them into Civil Unions and everything remains the same. The only real differnce is the name, the term "marriage" is regulated to being a religious term granted by the couples house of worship and is not a government function.

However that is not what Poltico proposed. He said "The government shouldn't be recognizing shit...". That means that the government wouldn't recognitize EITHER a Civil Marriage or Civil Union contract and those things that I listed would no longer exist as a function of government.

Two different things.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What are you driveling on about? Filing the paperwork means they recorded you were married. All of that typing was pointless.

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

For a great deal more lawyer time and money....AND...not required to be recognized thru-out all the states. Is this what you really want....just so gays can't have marriage?

I don't believe that is what Pop was saying. He was proposing that Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages for all couples (same- and different-sex) and that "marriage" be regulated to a religious term.

Civil Unions (recognized by the government) would be equally applied to same- and different-sex couples.


(Kind of a waste of time as in a generation everyone will still refer to them as marriages anyway. But maybe not a bad intermediate step while the younger generation - who doesn't care as much anyway - become the more dominant older generation.)



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

For a great deal more lawyer time and money....AND...not required to be recognized thru-out all the states. Is this what you really want....just so gays can't have marriage?

I don't believe that is what Pop was saying. He was proposing that Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages for all couples (same- and different-sex) and that "marriage" be regulated to a religious term.

Civil Unions (recognized by the government) would be equally applied to same- and different-sex couples.


(Kind of a waste of time as in a generation everyone will still refer to them as marriages anyway. But maybe not a bad intermediate step while the younger generation - who doesn't care as much anyway - become the more dominant older generation.)



>>>>

How much will be spent in changing the language in all those statutes, laws, and acts because someone SUDDENLY is feeling possessive about the word "marriage"? Where were the religious people when non-religious people were getting "married"?

 

[birddog]

Many of us conservatives have no problem with homosexual "legal unions,' but we don't want it to be called "marriage." I wonder if the OP percentage quote was inclusive of that?

 

[Pop23]

It truly was. Any contract can contain stipulations that fulfill all the needs of the individuals involved.

I don't get the objection.

For a great deal more lawyer time and money....AND...not required to be recognized thru-out all the states. Is this what you really want....just so gays can't have marriage?

I don't believe that is what Pop was saying. He was proposing that Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages for all couples (same- and different-sex) and that "marriage" be regulated to a religious term.

Civil Unions (recognized by the government) would be equally applied to same- and different-sex couples.


(Kind of a waste of time as in a generation everyone will still refer to them as marriages anyway. But maybe not a bad intermediate step while the younger generation - who doesn't care as much anyway - become the more dominant older generation.)



>>>>

I think your wrong. It seems to me that marriage, as in traditional marriage is a concept that's outlived it's time

I would actually think we would want it, the word, to become obsolete because of the historical connotations connected with segregation, homophobia and such.