Gay Marriage - Page 22Register Today!
- Apr 16, '12 by leslie :-DduplicateLast edit by leslie :-D on Apr 16, '12
- Apr 16, '12 by leslie :-DQuote from efiebkei'm with you, ted.We have come a long way, aknottedyarn. Sadly, there is still MUCH more work to be done. There still remains much prejudice and inequality in this country regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.
speaking to homophobia and racism, we have come a long way, but DO have a long way to go.
even w/the trayvon martin case, look at the influx of (seemingly) racist incidents that have occurred since his murder.
it frustrates me to no end, when people insist that true equality has been achieved.
i am reminded when obama was campaigning, he would encourage "dialogue" betw the opposition...betw blacks/whites, betw left/right, etc.
we remember how that turned out for him, yes?
indeed, we have a loooong way to go.
so yes, let us keep dialogue going.
it's the very least we can do.
- Apr 25, '12 by tewdlesQuote from LongislandLPNI am in favor of the government staying out of our private and personal lives.What is your view on Gay marriage. Are you for it? Against? Share your opinions.
Me: I am gay and for it. Even if I was not gay I think I would be for it. Lets share our views and opinions in a respectful classy manner! Thanks!
I am in favor of citizens of the USA enjoying the same opportunities, rights, and priviledges regardless of their gender, religion, culture, or love relationships.
I am not gay. None of my family are gay that I know of. I have many gay friends and co-workers.
- Jun 10, '12 by DoGoodThenGoQuote from Tweety*Update*To the person above, shacking up if your a man or woman eventually leads to some priviledges, such as "common law marriage".
I'm particularly concerned about seniors. When their partners die they don't get social security benefits, they pay estate taxes even if they owned the property jointly, etc. There's a case making it's way through the courts of a couple that was together for 44 years but when one died the partner was taxed $350,000. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us...iage.html?_r=2
Verdict came down last Wednesday and it was for the plantiff.
The federa appeals court judge in NYS struck down (again) the DOMA basically saying what every other decision (CA and MA) have stated; you cannot treat one couple/person differently than others. She went on about the 14th ammendment and so on and so forth. In summation the court ordered the federal goverment to refund the amount taxed.
As a native NYer didn't see much news coverage on this via local televison, but did see it on Google and HP. You can easily find coverage of the story by searching under the plantiff's name.
- Jun 10, '12 by DoGoodThenGoAbsent an ammendment to the consitution don't see how DOMA in it's current form will past a review by the SCOTUS. Then again wiser persons than myself have always said never try to second guess that body of government, so....
Given how the preceeding civil rights issues that have faced this nation in recent memory have played out (abortion, anti-discrimination by race,creed or colour and gender) to name a few many don't think the entire statue will be sturck down. That is to force states to accept gay marriage even when they have laws against it and so forth. IIRC the only case so far at the federal level to strike down DOMA entirely was the recent lower appeals court in NYS decision, which still could be appealed to the full court for that state/area. The decisions in CA and MA mainly pertain to residents of that state and their being able to legally marry (CA) and forcing the federal government to treat such marriages equally to residents of that state (MA).
Since the federal government itself does not issue marriage licences the fight is really comes down to bennies. Everything from immigration, Social Security, taxes and so forth. Much of this has to do with the fact Amercian family policy is still very much rooted in the old world doctrine of coverture.
In it's strictest sense coverture meant that legally a woman and all she owned or would have belonged to her husband. She couldn't make contracts to dispose of, have access to her own property or funds without the expressed consent of her husband.
Thankfully much of that has gone by the wayside but what has remained is the concept of marriage being "two persons as one". Which under most cirumstances married couples are treated as one unit for many government purposes. Indeed under the US tax system marriage is one of the largest forms of wealth transfer as property, assets and such can be left to or otherwise given to spouses free of any federal tax.
When persons say they "dont' want government interferring with person's private lives", they ought to give pause and think about their marital status and how it affects them via the federal government.
For decades now the US government has tried like many countries to "support families" by supposedly creating policies that lessen this or that burden upon married couples. The tax system is a perfect example. Current rates are set up basically to reflect a family unit that began declining during the 1950's and 1960's and has fallen off a cliff by today: a one wage earning member (usually male) wife (who either is a full time homemaker and does not work, or her employment pays wages much lower than her husband's). This means usually that as a married unit this couple will pay less in taxes than if they were single. However as more women have entered the workforce and wages increased for women many married couples find themselves paying the "marriage tax", in that they now owe more in taxes as a married couple than if they were single. Congress keeps coming up with ways to tippy toe around this problem, but nothing is a perfect solution.
Social Security is another huge goverment program that by design benefits spouses that either did not work or made much less in wages than their mates. A woman who graduates from college at 22, marries at 24 to man that does very well financially can claim spousal SS bennies at her retirement age that are more than a woman who worked her entire career and never married. In short the system rewards women who do not work and stay home.
For that and other reasons many worry just what would happen if DOMA is stricken down and or the federal government levels the playing field so to speak. Again since we're really only talking about bennies as far as marriage and the US government is concerned they are free to alter or eliminate whatever they choose.
In many parts of the world for instance women do not change their name upon marriage nor are they issued new SS cards reflecting marriage. Tax and social benefit policies are not strictly marriage based and there aren't joint tax returns. Other countries also tax transfers of wealth/assets between spouses and that includes inheritances. On that note in such places a spouse is *NOT* the instant first in line to a husband's or wife's estate, the children (both legitimate and illegitmate) along with the parents and other family members; blood trumps marriage so to speak.
Ironically it would be women that could be the major loosers in any change of US policy towards marriage. That sex is not seen as the frail need of protecting delicate flower that she once was when many of these laws/policies were enacted. Indeed marraige rates in this country have declined almost every year for the past several decades. By recent numbers the only group still marrying in great numbers are members of the upper middle class and above. Hardly a group that needs "protection" from the government.
OTOH the overwhelming face of poverty in the United States is of women and children. As marriage rates have plummeted and out of wedlock births increased many women find themselves poor for most of their adult lives. No fault divource has caused many women to loose whatever protections they thought they had, and this includes a large group of women >50. This country is now going to see a vast population of females enter retirement age poor, unwed and most without any sort of safety net at all. Yet this country still is run as if females will marry and thus their husband's will answer for their financial future.
Long rant/story short I for one welcome the debate on "same sex marriage". If for nothing else it may finally push this country to deal with how things really are for females. Hint it is *not* the "Ozzie and Harriet" world the government thinks.
*Whew* Rant over!
- Jul 4, '12 by SuperMeghan91I feel that the state should be allowed to marry any two consenting adults, but that a church doesn't have to marry anybody if they don't feel comfortable with it. I strongly believe in a separation of church and state, and while a church I go to may not agree with gay marriage, I have no problem with two people being happy together. There are so few happy people in the world, why try to make people miserable on purpose?
- Jul 4, '12 by jadelpnQuote from chapisthis bible quoting is in itself such a crock of...well, you know. the bible says "judge lest ye be judged", casting stones......people love to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to adhere to.....there are parts of the bible that say women shouldn't wear pants, use birth contol, wear makeup and should submit and cleave to their men. and unless you are taking each "cut and dry" verse and living it, then we should not be quoting solomon.i just want to clarify one last time for those that might be miss-understanding my previous two posts, as some have commented against my last two posts, which i didn't mention anything regarding gay marrieage.
the 1st & 2nd post i made, no one commented on, nor had a problem with it.
the 3rd post i made-i was clarifying what i meant when i used the quote on my 3rd post: "what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong". i didn't say anything about gay marriage on that third post either. i wasn't mentioning that gay was wrong and it should be called wrong because it was wrong to me. i was making an example by saying that if i , or you think something is right or wrong we should be able to say, i think it's right, or i think it's wrong. (pretty much talking about the poster's right to say his'her opinions, 'evangelist', about gay marriage was wrong and condemmed by god, without having pro-gay marriage poeple saying 'religion card'.) if that posters opinion is based in his'hers beliefs and those beliefs come from the bible, then so be it, we have our own beliefs about it and we fall back on them and say 'i'm pro because etc etc etc. it's not that we're playing the bible/religion card, it's just that our beliefs are from the bible since we beleive in god & the bible.
i'm not even going to go in detail about the posts that talk about what the bible says about homosexuality and how all of us can interpret it in different ways, there's no different way to interpret something when is cut & dry as those verses in the bible are on homosexuality.
this is my last post-as this can derail easily, as it already has happened, lol. i just wanted to clarify that my previous post that people were commenting about, i didnot say anything about gay marriage!
good night, yall have at it!!
and btw, unless you are going to have to face god for all of the "sins" of the world, people will repent on their own.
people should have the right to marry whomever they choose. period. you want to do the christian thing? pray for them, and us all.
- Jul 25, '12 by vintagePNI am a Christian. it is my life, my soul and everything I am.
However, the Bible was written thousands of years ago, and therefore can hardly be compared to today's society. Those who read the Bible and say it puts down women, gay people etc etc are right because it does....but it was written in a time when these things were the norm...and written by humans. Flawed, broken humans. I dont believe the entire Bible is God's own word, but man's.
I believe in gay equality and that they should be able to love and marry anyone they want, just like the rest of us. Jesus said not to judge, Jesus was about loving our neighbour and brothers and sisters. God is love.
I am saddened by Christians who alienate and shun the LGBT community, because that goes against everything we are suppose to stand for.
Then again, I am a Christian who supports cannabis cultivation and use, pacifism and extreme leftist ideals *gasp!* blasphemy! So what do I know...