Prop 8 is Unconstitutional

[billisonboard]

Feb 9, 2012 10:51:22 GMT -5 rockon said:

... whether our government should be changing the definition of marriage to allow them to receive benefits from the tax payers who oppose it.

The criteria of "benefits from the tax payers who oppose" is a very shaky one. There are other situations in which individuals receive benefits from my tax dollars that I oppose. Should they be withheld based on my opposition?

The same ability to, and benefits for, those who register their relationship with the government should or should not be allowed for all who determine they wish to do so. That to me is the issue.

[rockon]

This same question is coming up more frequently now not so much because Christian or other religious groups are trying to get involved with government as much as the fact that our government seems hell bent on encroaching into areas that involve religious and individual freedoms and rights along with their decisions that force people to support their actions.

[jupe36]

Billisonboard I agree. The issue is that a couple that is committed to each other should get treated equally in the eyes of the law. It's not just a matter of government acknowledgment and it's not even necessarily an issue of heterosexual vs. homosexual. A couple that has lived together for years without the 'marriage' certificate has many of the same issues. My husband and I lived together for 5 years before we were 'married'. He was in an accident, but I was unable to get any information at the hospital because I was not legally related. The same went for issues pertaining to our home. Some friends of ours never would have never gotten officially married; but chose to do so for much the same reason. (A bit more complicated than that, but you get the idea) The whole issue is over semantics. Those that aren't religious already view the word marriage as just a union between two people while those that are religious view the word marriage as a union between two people in the eyes of God.

[jupe36]

Why anybody cares about anybody Else's marriage is beyond me. If I'm religious and I get married in my church, then I am married in the eyes of God. If somebody else is or isn't shouldn't matter one way or the other. I was raised Catholic, but I didn't get married in the Roman Catholic church so technically the church doesn't even recognize my marriage. I'd imagine many religions take the same view...

[billisonboard]

Feb 9, 2012 12:42:38 GMT -5 jupe36 said:

Billisonboard I agree. The issue is that a couple that is committed to each other should get treated equally in the eyes of the law. It's not just a matter of government acknowledgment and it's not even necessarily an issue of heterosexual vs. homosexual. A couple that has lived together for years without the 'marriage' certificate has many of the same issues. ...

Just to clarify my thoughts here (not sure if this agrees or disagrees .

If two people choose to not register their relationship with the state, whatever consequence/inconvenience/lose of benefit that takes place is their problem and they get no sympathy from me. It is when two people wish to register but are not allowed to do so based on body parts is when it is an issue for me

[zibazinski]

DF and I are not married and we have total access to each others health records and care. It's a matter of a form that the doctors office and the hospitals give to you.

[humok]

Personally I do not care what the 9th circus has to say about it. I do not feel the fed govt has the right to say one way or the other. The people of the state voted on it and said "NO" and that should be the end of it.

[kittensaver]

Feb 9, 2012 14:09:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 9, 2012 12:42:38 GMT -5 jupe36 said:

Billisonboard I agree. The issue is that a couple that is committed to each other should get treated equally in the eyes of the law. It's not just a matter of government acknowledgment and it's not even necessarily an issue of heterosexual vs. homosexual. A couple that has lived together for years without the 'marriage' certificate has many of the same issues. ...

Just to clarify my thoughts here (not sure if this agrees or disagrees .

If two people choose to not register their relationship with the state, whatever consequence/inconvenience/lose of benefit that takes place is their problem and they get no sympathy from me. It is when two people wish to register but are not allowed to do so based on body parts is when it is an issue for me

Bingo! Because like it or not, there are civil rights and civil liberties exclusively attached to a marriage relationship in this country. Deny that relationship and you deny the civil rights. Like others have said, I agree that churches have the right to deny their religious ritual/ceremony/joining/sacrament/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to persons who do not think or believe like they do - they have done this for centuries and I don't have a problem with it. What I DO have a BIG problem with is any religious organization trying to dictate what goes on and what is allowed in a civil arena. Perhaps we should adopt the European system: civil marriages and religious marriages are exclusive of each other. One gives you your full civil rights and one is symbolic of your spiritual commitment.

Separation of Church and State - - what a novel idea! :-)

[Deleted]

Feb 9, 2012 14:16:26 GMT -5 humok said:

Personally I do not care what the 9th circus has to say about it. I do not feel the fed govt has the right to say one way or the other. The people of the state voted on it and said "NO" and that should be the end of it.

A majority should be able to remove a perceived civil right with a vote? That is rather scary alternative.

[Tennesseer]

My former employer offers medical benefits to partners of gay employees in states where same-sex marriage is not legal. In states where gay marriage is legal, the gay employees must be married for their partner to receive medical benefits.

This puts heterosexual and homosexual employees on equal footing.

[whoisjohngalt]

I think more and more companies are offering medical benefits to partners of gay employees. I wonder how much fraud is being committed bc of that.

Lena

[rockon]

Anybody see the new reality show called Taboo? We watched a little bit of it and couldn't believe some of the stuff going on there. If we really want to go down the road where marriage can be defined as any consenting union then we might all be a little shocked when the next group wants rights for their animal, vehicle, family, dolls and maybe even their hands. As a matter of fact why discriminate against single people at all? Lets just make marriage illegal then there will be no issue to argue about.

[billisonboard]

Feb 9, 2012 14:16:26 GMT -5 humok said:

Personally I do not care what the 9th circus has to say about it. I do not feel the fed govt has the right to say one way or the other. The people of the state voted on it and said "NO" and that should be the end of it.

Disagree. It is reasonable to argue whether there is a legitimate constitutional issue involved but to simply say, "(t)he people of the state voted on it and ..." leaves open the opportunity for a majority to step on constitutional rights of others.

[billisonboard]

Feb 9, 2012 15:11:22 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

I think more and more companies are offering medical benefits to partners of gay employees. I wonder how much fraud is being committed bc of that.

Lena

I would guess that there are at least two or three people in the country saying, "This is my gay/lesbian lover" simple to get a friend covered under employee medical benefits.

[billisonboard]

Feb 9, 2012 15:14:31 GMT -5 rockon said:

Anybody see the new reality show called Taboo? We watched a little bit of it and couldn't believe some of the stuff going on there. If we really want to go down the road where marriage can be defined as any consenting union then we might all be a little shocked when the next group wants rights for their animal, vehicle, family, dolls and maybe even their hands. As a matter of fact why discriminate against single people at all? Lets just make marriage illegal then there will be no issue to argue about.

Yes and when animals, vehicles, and dolls can consent we will worry about it.

[swamp]

Feb 9, 2012 14:12:16 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

DF and I are not married and we have total access to each others health records and care. It's a matter of a form that the doctors office and the hospitals give to you.

But you will not automatically inherit from him if he dies, nor can you collect on his social security, nor are private communications between the two of you priviledged and exempt from compelled testimony.

[gavinsnana]

This is an issue I struggled with a few years back. The way I look at it.. I am not God and not going to judge anyone's right to love someone... If it becomes legal.. then it does..

And I agree with someones post.. Lawyers will be happy.. more $$$ when divorces are filed.

Just love the one you love and be happy..

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 9, 2012 2:16:47 GMT -5 jupe36 said:

If marriage is a religious union, the government should have never recognized 'marriages' in the first place; nor should they have made special laws or rules about married couples. If the government just recognized a legal union between two people it should take away the argument that a 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. This would give everyone equal rights in the eyes of the government. A couple who wanted the designation of 'marriage' could arrange that with the church.

An individual state has the right to do as it pleases, but there is no 'right' to marry. Freedom of contract covers most issues.

[gavinsnana]

I also beleive that no one has the right to tell you who to love, especially our Government.. Just as I feel very strongly that the Government needs to stay out of our private lives and where we chose to worship.. Government IMO is getting to be too much into our lives.. a busy body!

[swamp]

Feb 9, 2012 15:54:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 9, 2012 2:16:47 GMT -5 jupe36 said:

If marriage is a religious union, the government should have never recognized 'marriages' in the first place; nor should they have made special laws or rules about married couples. If the government just recognized a legal union between two people it should take away the argument that a 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. This would give everyone equal rights in the eyes of the government. A couple who wanted the designation of 'marriage' could arrange that with the church.

An individual state has the right to do as it pleases, but there is no 'right' to marry. Freedom of contract covers most issues.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court did say in a case that marriage is a fundamental right. Granted, I'm pulling this out of my butt since it's been about 18 years since I took Constitutional Law..........I'll have to do a little research and get back to you on that.

ETA: I found it. Loving v. Virginia, 1967.

[kittensaver]

Feb 9, 2012 15:54:12 GMT -5 gavinsnana said:

I also beleive that no one has the right to tell you who to love, especially our Government.. Just as I feel very strongly that the Government needs to stay out of our private lives and where we chose to worship.. Government IMO is getting to be too much into our lives.. a busy body!

And so Nana . . . do you also feel that churches and their beliefs and opinions should stay out of the civil arena, aka, being busy bodies and telling people how to live their lives? Not trying to be oppositional, just curious . . .

[Sum Dum Gai]

Oh, and regarding the icky thing, let's be honest about that. Anyone want to tell me that it's not icky when these two hook up???

[swamp]

DARK!!!!!

Pass the ice pick, please.

[zibazinski]

I actually stand to inherit more than if I was just given what is due me as a spouse. I won't collect his social security, that is true, but I doubt either of us will ever collect it anyway. He doesn't do anything illegal anyway and neither do I so having our conversations confidential is moot. He wants to get married and so do I, so we will.

[Sum Dum Gai]

What?? You should have seen some of the ones that I thought about posting, but was worried I'd get banned over. Some people be nasty!!!

[gavinsnana]

Feb 9, 2012 16:04:33 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Feb 9, 2012 15:54:12 GMT -5 gavinsnana said:

I also beleive that no one has the right to tell you who to love, especially our Government.. Just as I feel very strongly that the Government needs to stay out of our private lives and where we chose to worship.. Government IMO is getting to be too much into our lives.. a busy body!

And so Nana . . . do you also feel that churches and their beliefs and opinions should stay out of the civil arena, aka, being busy bodies and telling people how to live their lives? Not trying to be oppositional, just curious . . .

I don't feel all churches do this, and yes I know there are some. But at the same time, I do not feel the Government has the right to tell a Church what to accept and not to, if it goes against their teachings.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I do not feel the Government has the right to tell a Church what to accept and not to, if it goes against their teachings.

They aren't telling a church what to accept. Even if gay marriage is legal there isn't a single church anywhere that's forced to perform ceremonies for any couple they don't want too. For any reason. Any church or religious organization can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, inter-racial couples, people under 5' tall, people over 6' tall, fat people, skinny people, people who don't tithe enough, or any other criteria they want. However, voters can't take a privilege away from a minority group just because they feel like it.

[gavinsnana]

I have never heard of my church refusing to marry interracial couples or short ones, fat ones or skinny ones. But I don't think they would marry a gay couple because it goes against their teachings and beliefs. Would you expect a Muslim Church to be ordered to marry a non Muslim and a Muslim? No you wouldn't.

Not judging anyone and I am for the right to love whoever you please.. Its not up to me or anyone else to tell anyone what they can or cannot do, short of murdering someone. But at the same time, I don't feel anyone should impose their views upon a Church when it goes against their teachings.

Be happy in life and love the one your with..

[cranberry49]

Feb 9, 2012 20:44:27 GMT -5 gavinsnana said:

I have never heard of my church refusing to marry interracial couples or short ones, fat ones or skinny ones. But I don't think they would marry a gay couple because it goes against their teachings and beliefs. Would you expect a Muslim Church to be ordered to marry a non Muslim and a Muslim? No you wouldn't.

Not judging anyone and I am for the right to love whoever you please.. Its not up to me or anyone else to tell anyone what they can or cannot do, short of murdering someone. But at the same time, I don't feel anyone should impose their views upon a Church when it goes against their teachings.

Be happy in life and love the one your with..

I agree with this also, nanna!

[cranberry49]

Testing to see if my avatar shows this time!