Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[OohPooPahDoo]

Perhaps you should actually find out which state I live in before making such wild and ignorant comments?

We were required to get a marriage license (and I was pissed about it).

Why is it that libtards insist in speaking from a place of pure ignorance? I'm just curious. Can anyone tell me?

Link to the law that requires a license for a religious ceremony.

Ah, no thanks sweetie. I have no desire to be the next James Moore because libtards have lost on the battlefield of policy and ideas.

The fact is, our church and pastor are not permitted to perform a marriage ceremony without the couple having first obtained a marriage license. It is a requirement (and just another example of government intruding on the church).

I would tell you to do your own homework, be we all know that is not the liberal way. The liberal way is to live off of the work of others.

You wanted to get married to your wife without a marriage license? Seriously? What for?

 

[Seawytch]

Obviously in a state that doesn't require it. I happen to be in a different situation with my state.

It is possible in ANY state if you do not care if your marriage is legally binding. That is the key in EVERY state. If you didn't want your marriage to be legally binding, you could get a religious ceremony performed, just like "the gheys" do.

No - and had no idea that was even possible.

If either you or your spouse are on each other's health plan, it's happening now. You pay for your family's health plan with pre-tax dollars. I can't.

Ending the Gay Health Care Tax

Do you file joint taxes?

No - our accountant informed us we take it on the chin a little lighter when we file separately. Sad, isn't it?

Then your spouse must work, mine does not.

Are you secure in the knowledge she could visit you in the hospital?

Yes. But then again, all of my friends can visit me in the hospital. So I can't imagine why that would be a concern for you and your significant other.

Not if you were on your deathbed in the ICU, your friends can't visit you, only family. Look what happens to us without the protections of legal marriage.

Same-sex couple in Henderson upset with hospital's treatment

Kept From a Dying Partner’s Bedside

Gay Man Denied Visitation Rights, Arrested in Kansas City

On a side note - you appear to be well informed on all of the various benefits of marriage. Kudos. It's not often you encounter a liberal who is actually informed in a debate.

However, doesn't this just prove what I have said from the very beginning? I don't know a damn thing about what (benefits/perks/options) my marriage affords me because I don't care.

For the gay community - it's almost (there are always exceptions) exclusively about the tangible benefits marriage affords them. And that's fine. But the problem is - just like everything else - the liberals refuse to have an honest discussion/debate.

There are over a 1,000 federal rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage, many you are likely taking advantage of and aren't even aware you're doing it.

We are being denied equal access to legal, civil marriage. Just because you don't believe you "use" the benefits, you still get them.

Here is just a small sampling:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry sweetie - you slipped and the truth came out. You're on record - no backpedaling now....

"If you don't care that legal marriage comes with over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges, why do it?" - Seawytch

its not about rights with wytchey, its all about the word "marriage". She, and a lot of gays, want to shove their lifestyle in our faces. They are an aberation of the human condition, that will never change.

Back again Fishy? This makes how many now since your last last post? Can't stay away?

I've already proven that it is YOU hung up on the word, not me. Call it anything you want, just make it the same.

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

 

[Seawytch]

its not about rights with wytchey, its all about the word "marriage". She, and a lot of gays, want to shove their lifestyle in our faces. They are an aberation of the human condition, that will never change.

Back again Fishy? This makes how many now since your last last post? Can't stay away?

I've already proven that it is YOU hung up on the word, not me. Call it anything you want, just make it the same.

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Calling it a civil marriage for hets and civil unions for gays is not equal. (Same water came out of both fountains, right)Civil unions for all is. I support that wholeheartedly, do you?

 

[Redfish]

Back again Fishy? This makes how many now since your last last post? Can't stay away?

I've already proven that it is YOU hung up on the word, not me. Call it anything you want, just make it the same.

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Calling it a civil marriage for hets and civil unions for gays is not equal. (Same water came out of both fountains, right)Civil unions for all is. I support that wholeheartedly, do you?

thanks for verifying my comment. It IS all about the word with you. Its not about rights, its about you wanting the govt to force the rest of us to call your perverted gay hook up a marriage. But its not and never will be.

Its a legal civil union, it gives you all of the rights that a hetro couple have---so anything else you say becomes moot, because you have lost all credibility.

 

[WorldWatcher]

its not about rights with wytchey, its all about the word "marriage". She, and a lot of gays, want to shove their lifestyle in our faces. They are an aberation of the human condition, that will never change.

Back again Fishy? This makes how many now since your last last post? Can't stay away?

I've already proven that it is YOU hung up on the word, not me. Call it anything you want, just make it the same.

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Redfish,

If I remember correctly Seawytch doesn't have a civil union contract, she has a Civil Marriage issued under the authority of the State of California. Referring to her Civil Marriage as a Civil Union is disingenuous.


You say her legal relationship has " every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one". OK, let's just take one example.

A Civilly Married couple purchases a house together and builds their life. If a single person buys and sells a house they can take tax exemption of up to $250,000 on the profit from the sale of the home. A Civilly Married couple can take $500,000 ($250K for each) which makes sense. Now, if one of the spouses dies there are two situations. In one case the surviving spouse can continue to take the $500,000 deduction for up to two years after the death of the spouse as a widow(er). In the other case the surviving spouse CANNOT take the $500,000 deduction as a widow(er) and only gets the $250,000 deduction. The post spousal death exemption of $500,000 applies to legally Civilly Married different-sex couples. Not having that same exemption applies to different-sex legally Civilly Married couples.


No, they are not treated exactly the same.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Calling it a civil marriage for hets and civil unions for gays is not equal. (Same water came out of both fountains, right)Civil unions for all is. I support that wholeheartedly, do you?

thanks for verifying my comment. It IS all about the word with you. Its not about rights, its about you wanting the govt to force the rest of us to call your perverted gay hook up a marriage. But its not and never will be.

Its a legal civil union, it gives you all of the rights that a hetro couple have---so anything else you say becomes moot, because you have lost all credibility.

Is this intentional obtuseness or a reading comprehension problem?

Again, I don't care what you call it, it simply must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. Lose the word marriage, I don't care. I only care that it is equal. You don't. You want for straights to have civil marriage and gays to have some thing else. I want everyone to have the same thing, whether you call it civil marriage, civil unions or cabbage ******* soup.

 

[Seawytch]

Back again Fishy? This makes how many now since your last last post? Can't stay away?

I've already proven that it is YOU hung up on the word, not me. Call it anything you want, just make it the same.

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Redfish,

If I remember correctly Seawytch doesn't have a civil union contract, she has a Civil Marriage issued under the authority of the State of California. Referring to her Civil Marriage as a Civil Union is disingenuous.


You say her legal relationship has " every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one". OK, let's just take one example.

A Civilly Married couple purchases a house together and builds their life. If a single person buys and sells a house they can take tax exemption of up to $250,000 on the profit from the sale of the home. A Civilly Married couple can take $500,000 ($250K for each) which makes sense. Now, if one of the spouses dies there are two situations. In one case the surviving spouse can continue to take the $500,000 deduction for up to two years after the death of the spouse as a widow(er). In the other case the surviving spouse CANNOT take the $500,000 deduction as a widow(er) and only gets the $250,000 deduction. The post spousal death exemption of $500,000 applies to legally Civilly Married different-sex couples. Not having that same exemption applies to different-sex legally Civilly Married couples.


No, they are not treated exactly the same.



>>>>

I pay over $100 more a month in taxes because my legal spouse's insurance does not come from pre-tax dollars like a heterosexual married couples is.

 

[Redfish]

Back again Fishy? This makes how many now since your last last post? Can't stay away?

I've already proven that it is YOU hung up on the word, not me. Call it anything you want, just make it the same.

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Redfish,

If I remember correctly Seawytch doesn't have a civil union contract, she has a Civil Marriage issued under the authority of the State of California. Referring to her Civil Marriage as a Civil Union is disingenuous.


You say her legal relationship has " every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one". OK, let's just take one example.

A Civilly Married couple purchases a house together and builds their life. If a single person buys and sells a house they can take tax exemption of up to $250,000 on the profit from the sale of the home. A Civilly Married couple can take $500,000 ($250K for each) which makes sense. Now, if one of the spouses dies there are two situations. In one case the surviving spouse can continue to take the $500,000 deduction for up to two years after the death of the spouse as a widow(er). In the other case the surviving spouse CANNOT take the $500,000 deduction as a widow(er) and only gets the $250,000 deduction. The post spousal death exemption of $500,000 applies to legally Civilly Married different-sex couples. Not having that same exemption applies to different-sex legally Civilly Married couples.


No, they are not treated exactly the same.



>>>>

then that law should be changed. Change the law, not the definition of marriage. Marriage has a historical meaning in every religion and culture that has ever existed.

I have no issue with gays having equal rights, I totally support that concept. But that is not Seawytch's issue. She refuses to admit it, but what she wants is for the govt to mandate that the rest of us accept her lifestyle as equal to heterosexual marriage.

Her issue is not rights.

 

[Redfish]

It is the same. under a civil union contract you have every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one--------equal rights.

But thats not enough, is it? Thats not your real goal is it? What you are after is mandated acceptance of your life style, you want the govt to force the rest of us to condone homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexuality as a human condition.

Well, sorry, but its not.

Your disengenuous posts about equality verify that that is not your real issue.

Redfish,

If I remember correctly Seawytch doesn't have a civil union contract, she has a Civil Marriage issued under the authority of the State of California. Referring to her Civil Marriage as a Civil Union is disingenuous.


You say her legal relationship has " every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one". OK, let's just take one example.

A Civilly Married couple purchases a house together and builds their life. If a single person buys and sells a house they can take tax exemption of up to $250,000 on the profit from the sale of the home. A Civilly Married couple can take $500,000 ($250K for each) which makes sense. Now, if one of the spouses dies there are two situations. In one case the surviving spouse can continue to take the $500,000 deduction for up to two years after the death of the spouse as a widow(er). In the other case the surviving spouse CANNOT take the $500,000 deduction as a widow(er) and only gets the $250,000 deduction. The post spousal death exemption of $500,000 applies to legally Civilly Married different-sex couples. Not having that same exemption applies to different-sex legally Civilly Married couples.


No, they are not treated exactly the same.



>>>>

I pay over $100 more a month in taxes because my legal spouse's insurance does not come from pre-tax dollars like a heterosexual married couples is.

thats wrong and the law should be changed. you are putting your emphasis in the wrong place.

 

[Redfish]

Calling it a civil marriage for hets and civil unions for gays is not equal. (Same water came out of both fountains, right)Civil unions for all is. I support that wholeheartedly, do you?

thanks for verifying my comment. It IS all about the word with you. Its not about rights, its about you wanting the govt to force the rest of us to call your perverted gay hook up a marriage. But its not and never will be.

Its a legal civil union, it gives you all of the rights that a hetro couple have---so anything else you say becomes moot, because you have lost all credibility.

Is this intentional obtuseness or a reading comprehension problem?

Again, I don't care what you call it, it simply must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. Lose the word marriage, I don't care. I only care that it is equal. You don't. You want for straights to have civil marriage and gays to have some thing else. I want everyone to have the same thing, whether you call it civil marriage, civil unions or cabbage ******* soup.

gay marriage = cabbage ******* soup. OK, if you say so

 

[Seawytch]

Redfish,

If I remember correctly Seawytch doesn't have a civil union contract, she has a Civil Marriage issued under the authority of the State of California. Referring to her Civil Marriage as a Civil Union is disingenuous.


You say her legal relationship has " every one of the rights that a heterosexual couple have-----every one". OK, let's just take one example.

A Civilly Married couple purchases a house together and builds their life. If a single person buys and sells a house they can take tax exemption of up to $250,000 on the profit from the sale of the home. A Civilly Married couple can take $500,000 ($250K for each) which makes sense. Now, if one of the spouses dies there are two situations. In one case the surviving spouse can continue to take the $500,000 deduction for up to two years after the death of the spouse as a widow(er). In the other case the surviving spouse CANNOT take the $500,000 deduction as a widow(er) and only gets the $250,000 deduction. The post spousal death exemption of $500,000 applies to legally Civilly Married different-sex couples. Not having that same exemption applies to different-sex legally Civilly Married couples.


No, they are not treated exactly the same.



>>>>

I pay over $100 more a month in taxes because my legal spouse's insurance does not come from pre-tax dollars like a heterosexual married couples is.

thats wrong and the law should be changed. you are putting your emphasis in the wrong place.

It will be changed in just a few weeks when the SCOTUS rules section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

thanks for verifying my comment. It IS all about the word with you. Its not about rights, its about you wanting the govt to force the rest of us to call your perverted gay hook up a marriage. But its not and never will be.

Its a legal civil union, it gives you all of the rights that a hetro couple have---so anything else you say becomes moot, because you have lost all credibility.

Is this intentional obtuseness or a reading comprehension problem?

Again, I don't care what you call it, it simply must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. Lose the word marriage, I don't care. I only care that it is equal. You don't. You want for straights to have civil marriage and gays to have some thing else. I want everyone to have the same thing, whether you call it civil marriage, civil unions or cabbage ******* soup.

gay marriage = cabbage ******* soup. OK, if you say so

No, all civil marriages since you're the one hung up on a word.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If your father - or someone acting on his behalf - didn't choose your spouse for you, then your marriage is just fucked.

 

[P@triot]

Link to the law that requires a license for a religious ceremony.

Ah, no thanks sweetie. I have no desire to be the next James Moore because libtards have lost on the battlefield of policy and ideas.

The fact is, our church and pastor are not permitted to perform a marriage ceremony without the couple having first obtained a marriage license. It is a requirement (and just another example of government intruding on the church).

I would tell you to do your own homework, be we all know that is not the liberal way. The liberal way is to live off of the work of others.

You wanted to get married to your wife without a marriage license? Seriously? What for?

1.) It was just another way for government to take money from me (because libtards feel that already taking more than 50% of what I earn is not enough to quench their greed). Ask yourself why there needs to be an absorbent fee associated with the license? If I remember correctly, I think we paid about $60 (it's been a while, so forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate). I know damn well they aren't paying the clerk $60 per 5 minutes (or $720 per hour) to process the paperwork - so how exactly do they justify this? It's just another way to **** the American people for their socialism.

2.) What business is it of the government who I marry? My marriage is between myself, my wife, my church, and God. I see no room for government in there (nor should there be).

 

[P@triot]

Obviously in a state that doesn't require it. I happen to be in a different situation with my state.

It is possible in ANY state if you do not care if your marriage is legally binding. That is the key in EVERY state. If you didn't want your marriage to be legally binding, you could get a religious ceremony performed, just like "the gheys" do.

I don't know how to make this any more clear - our church was not permitted to marry us unless we produced a marriage license from the state. Period.

On a side note - why do you assume that because I believe in traditional marriage, I "hate" gay people? Is it because you need that to demonize your opponent so as to construct an argument?

I don't assume you hate straight people. I mean, you very well might. You're being insane if you don't think there are gay people who HATE straight people. But I don't just assume that about you.

 

[bendog]

Ah, no thanks sweetie. I have no desire to be the next James Moore because libtards have lost on the battlefield of policy and ideas.

The fact is, our church and pastor are not permitted to perform a marriage ceremony without the couple having first obtained a marriage license. It is a requirement (and just another example of government intruding on the church).

I would tell you to do your own homework, be we all know that is not the liberal way. The liberal way is to live off of the work of others.

You wanted to get married to your wife without a marriage license? Seriously? What for?

1.) It was just another way for government to take money from me (because libtards feel that already taking more than 50% of what I earn is not enough to quench their greed). Ask yourself why there needs to be an absorbent fee associated with the license? If I remember correctly, I think we paid about $60 (it's been a while, so forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate). I know damn well they aren't paying the clerk $60 per 5 minutes (or $720 per hour) to process the paperwork - so how exactly do they justify this? It's just another way to **** the American people for their socialism.

2.) What business is it of the government who I marry? My marriage is between myself, my wife, my church, and God. I see no room for government in there (nor should there be).

So long as you didn't marry a man, I guess it's ok (-:

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Obviously in a state that doesn't require it. I happen to be in a different situation with my state.

It is possible in ANY state if you do not care if your marriage is legally binding. That is the key in EVERY state. If you didn't want your marriage to be legally binding, you could get a religious ceremony performed, just like "the gheys" do.

I don't know how to make this any more clear - our church was not permitted to marry us unless we produced a marriage license from the state. Period.

On a side note - why do you assume that because I believe in traditional marriage, I "hate" gay people? Is it because you need that to demonize your opponent so as to construct an argument?

I don't assume you hate straight people. I mean, you very well might. You're being insane if you don't think there are gay people who HATE straight people. But I don't just assume that about you.

But you don't believe in traditional marriage. Traditional marriages are arranged. Was your marriage arranged by your parents? Then its not traditional.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know how to make this any more clear - our church was not permitted to marry us unless we produced a marriage license from the state. Period.

Your church was not permitted to represent the state in officiating your entry into a public contract without said license. Your religious institution could perform any religious ceremony it wants; your marriage would just not have been recognized by the state as legal and binding.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Obviously in a state that doesn't require it. I happen to be in a different situation with my state.

It is possible in ANY state if you do not care if your marriage is legally binding. That is the key in EVERY state. If you didn't want your marriage to be legally binding, you could get a religious ceremony performed, just like "the gheys" do.

I do not doubt Rottweiler's claim that when he was married you had to have a license to have a religious ceremony. There are a lot of weird requirements for marriage in the states, and the further back you go in time (I'm sure Rot was married 60 years ago or so) the weirder they get. Did you know some states require you get tested for STD's before you are married?