Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[xsited1]

Seems the only time they use this is to deny homosexual marriage .. but ignore it when coming up with arguments against it. What you forget, and many groups have figured out, they are not denied the right to a religious marriage to 4 wives, if they choose, however they are only afforded the LEGAL rights to one, something which is more to prevent the abuse of those legal rights. They can still have a religious marriage and are not being forced to ignore their religion or being excluded because of it. The legal rights of marriage are different from the religious rights and homosexual marriage should be afforded that same difference.

And therein lies the problem. If, say, a Mormon man has 6 wives and he dies, the State will only recognize the rights of one. How is that not discriminatory?

Because if there are 6 people legally capable of claiming rights to the various aspects of the dead husband then the courts would be tied up with 6 cases of varying wishes fighting to have their rights respected while it would be impossible. It would also cost a fortune in court costs which would likely be funded in large through taxes, of which because of the tax laws of marriage the entire group would have paid much less than they use. Even if we assumed that this would have no impact on us, there are the burial arrangements, hospital care decisions, the list goes on. It's been a mess more often than not, so the legal decision to make only one spouse both accountable and liable solves all the problems.

So if a mother and father have 6 kids, why not give one child full rights over the estate?

(Nice effort, though.)

 

[KittenKoder]

And therein lies the problem. If, say, a Mormon man has 6 wives and he dies, the State will only recognize the rights of one. How is that not discriminatory?

Because if there are 6 people legally capable of claiming rights to the various aspects of the dead husband then the courts would be tied up with 6 cases of varying wishes fighting to have their rights respected while it would be impossible. It would also cost a fortune in court costs which would likely be funded in large through taxes, of which because of the tax laws of marriage the entire group would have paid much less than they use. Even if we assumed that this would have no impact on us, there are the burial arrangements, hospital care decisions, the list goes on. It's been a mess more often than not, so the legal decision to make only one spouse both accountable and liable solves all the problems.

So if a mother and father have 6 kids, why not give one child full rights over the estate?

(Nice effort, though.)

Actually ... that would save a TON of heart aches and problems that do arise when multiple offspring are often present.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I was pleasantly surprised they were able to override the governor’s veto in Vermont. They didn’t initially have 2/3 in both houses. However, due to the federal DOMA the SCOTUS will probably need to rule on this issue at some point.

I couldn't tell from the story, are they using the terms "civil union" and marriage interchangeably? They seem to say that this gave the right to marry and they also said Vermont was the first state to grant civil unions. So I couldn't tell whether they gave the right to civil union and then followed that up with the right to marry or whether they were using the terms interchangeably.

In any case, I wholeheartedly support the manner in which this was done. Other states should follow suit on controversial issues. The court should not be put in the position of legislature of last resort.

California actually DID legalize gay marriage through the legislature. Prop 8 overturned it. It's in front of the CA Supreme Court right now and will likely overturn Prop 8 and re-legalize gay marriage in CA.

It is offensive to have a state-constitution amendment that other people vote on being decided by other people.

California never actually legalized gay marriage without use of the courts. In the early 90s, the legislature clarified the language to be between men and women. Before that the language was gender-neutral, but gay marriage wasn’t much of an issue at the time. In 2000, prop 22 changed the code to prohibit SSM explicitly. In 2005 a bill to legalize SSM was introduced, and defeated. But in the same session was added as a rider to an unrelated bill which did pass both houses. However, the governator vetoed the bill, saying he was unwilling to try to overrule the people or the courts on prop 22. In 2007 a bill to legalize gay marriage was again passed by the houses, but again vetoed by the governor saying the courts will decide the matter (by then prop 22 had been challenged in court). Prior to the CA Supreme Court ruling, Prop 8 was born to try to take the decision out of the court’s hands by making the language of the Constitution itself explicitly forbid SSM. The court ruled prop 22 unconstitutional on May 15, 2008. In November 2008 Prop 8 passed, albeit by a much smaller margin than prop 22 had. Polls conducted late in the work week indicated it would fail, polls conducted early in the work week indicated it would pass. Currently Prop 8 is being challenged on mostly procedural grounds. The 18,000 gays who got married during the brief period gay marriage was legal seem to be keeping their marital status.

What a load. I know there have been, what, a thousand posts on this?

Easily, if you’re talking about gay marriage in general.

Who cares?

Best indicator of that would be who contributed to those 1000 posts.

Your post states the exact opposite of all fact.

Two men getting married to put their Penises into each others rectum/and or anus, is classified as Sodomy.! Anyway you cut it it is called Sodomy, and is still illegal in many countries throughout the world.

It is unnatural.Illegal, illogical , a waste of sperm, highly unethical.

... that's just your opinion and you are entitled to it, it doesn't make it fact. As for our reputation, the more equal rights we afford others the more angry the terrorists get and the happier all other countries get ... so yeah ...

Hm... Do you have anything to back up that terrorists hate us because we have "equal rights." Maybe they’d be more concerned about us forcing them to treat their women and gays equally. Them willing to sac themselves to kill us is due to reasons more along the lines of supporting their enemies, imposing our way of thinking on them, appearing to attack Islam, etc.

Seems the only time they use this is to deny homosexual marriage .. but ignore it when coming up with arguments against it. What you forget, and many groups have figured out, they are not denied the right to a religious marriage to 4 wives, if they choose, however they are only afforded the LEGAL rights to one, something which is more to prevent the abuse of those legal rights. They can still have a religious marriage and are not being forced to ignore their religion or being excluded because of it. The legal rights of marriage are different from the religious rights and homosexual marriage should be afforded that same difference.

And therein lies the problem. If, say, a Mormon man has 6 wives and he dies, the State will only recognize the rights of one. How is that not discriminatory?

Because if there are 6 people legally capable of claiming rights to the various aspects of the dead husband then the courts would be tied up with 6 cases of varying wishes fighting to have their rights respected while it would be impossible. It would also cost a fortune in court costs which would likely be funded in large through taxes, of which because of the tax laws of marriage the entire group would have paid much less than they use. Even if we assumed that this would have no impact on us, there are the burial arrangements, hospital care decisions, the list goes on. It's been a mess more often than not, so the legal decision to make only one spouse both accountable and liable solves all the problems.

Those problems would all be easy to address. If they can't agree on how to divide things up then they'll have to pay for lawyers and courts, reducing the overall wealth available to them. In fact, I thought that was how it already works with dividing property after divorce or death. That's not something that requires a lot of extra taxes. If there's property to be distributed worth going to court over, there's the source of funding right there.

Another thing necessary would be to make pre-nups actually stand up in court, but re-signed by all involved whenever changes are made, e.g. another spouse added. For healthcare decisions I don't see that as any more complex than single people whose family must be consulted for healthcare decisions. What if the mother and father disagree? That's not distinct from a 3 person marriage.

As for taxes, there is an economy of scale for living with a lot of people in general, but quite simply the government can give them exactly the same benefit as they do 2-person couples. I have no idea why you think it would be necessary to tack on another benefit per spouse, except if they're dependents who don't work whom would be claimed even if they weren't married.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d71wPLPW168&feature=related]YouTube - Boys Beware[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

Right, it should be a CHOICE if the church wants to or not.

Wouldn't that be where separation of Church and State comes into play anyway? I seriously doubt the government can "make" a church marry same sex couples.

I know some Unitarian have married same sex partners, and that is their choice.

the government can't force churches to marry gays, and conservatives KNOW it.

I think they trot that out as an excuse, probably because they aren't comfortable publically stating the real reasons they are against gay marriage.

The government can't force churches to marry gays yet. Once enough States allow gay marriages, I suspect the gay lobby will push to require all churches to marry gays on the basis of discrimination. The company eHarmony used to only match straight couples, but a few anti-discrimination lawsuits later and they are now forced to offer same-sex matches. The Conservatives see this coming and are trying to put a stop to it, but I doubt they'll win.

Such bullshit. I suppose you think the government will force Catholic churches to marry Jews or vice versa. Churches perform weddings at their discretion, always have and always will.

 

[Ravi]

Right, it should be a CHOICE if the church wants to or not.

Wouldn't that be where separation of Church and State comes into play anyway? I seriously doubt the government can "make" a church marry same sex couples.

I know some Unitarian have married same sex partners, and that is their choice.

the government can't force churches to marry gays, and conservatives KNOW it.

I think they trot that out as an excuse, probably because they aren't comfortable publically stating the real reasons they are against gay marriage.

The government can't force churches to marry gays yet. Once enough States allow gay marriages, I suspect the gay lobby will push to require all churches to marry gays on the basis of discrimination. The company eHarmony used to only match straight couples, but a few anti-discrimination lawsuits later and they are now forced to offer same-sex matches. The Conservatives see this coming and are trying to put a stop to it, but I doubt they'll win.

btw, you are totally misrepresenting eHarmony...they were not forced into doing anything.

[12] eHarmony's lack of same-sex matching options has prompted lawsuits claiming that eHarmony has violated laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[13] A California case was dismissed, but as part of the settlement of a New Jersey case, eHarmony launched a partner website called Compatible Partners providing same-sex match-making "for serious couples"[14][15] According to the Associated Press, neither the company nor Warren acknowledged any liability. Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for eHarmony, said that even though the company believed the complaint was "an unfair characterization of our business," it chose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation.[16]

 

[52ndStreet]

No not my opinion, these are laws on the Books in many countries that don't allow that kind of activity.

There are also laws on the books in many countries that don't allow women the right to speak in public and allow men to rape their wives. Shockingly, these are the same countries you're talking about. Wanna keep bragging about this or do you wanna shut up now?

Homosexuality. Your world of anything goes, no morals or decent rules of human existence, will not last. You are immoral,by supporting Homosexuality.You have no morals! An abomination in the eyes of God and all God loving Christians.

Boy are you "judging" someone based upon their acceptance of a lifestyle of allowing two people who love each other to be happy. Your world of closed mindedness, black and white social conservativism will not last. You are immoral by judging other people. It is NOT your place, puny human, to EVER judge another human based upon their actions. You are an abomination in the eyes of God and all God living Christians.

What proof do I have of this? Homosexuality is discussed and condemned in a covenant in which YOU have rejected by creating a new one. Jesus himself said "Judge not lest you be judged."

This Homosexuality is not a lifstyle, it is sexual perversion. I do belive one day they will move to ban Homosexuality.It is unsanitary, and many of these so called "lifstyle Homosexuals" have a lot of anti-biotic resistent infections , and diseases.Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B, not to mention the 15 different mutating AIDS viruses that they keep swaping from each others anuses.!? Still feel they shoudl be allowed to create these new resistant
diseases, and tranfer them to the straight heterosexual world.?