Is fighting gay rights a teaparty value?

[billisonboard]

Jul 21, 2011 20:09:47 GMT -5 humok said:

As for the OP.....What gay rights are you talking about abolishing? They have the same rights as any other man or woman in this country, why should they have "special priviliges/rights" above anyone else?

humok, gays are attempting to increase your rights.

[cereb]

"not what marriage has always been about from the beginning of time for mankind and you need to ask that....just use common sense."


What you perceive to be a long standing history of marriage and what it actually was seems to be two different things. Marriage has evolved a great deal over time.

[humok]

Well I cannot be sold on changing what marriage has alwasy been about. they are free to live together and do what ever. I am just against marriage (to reap benefits) of the same sex so they can feel better and some how make their situation " natural (as in how nature made man and woman). Man was made for woman and woman was made for man to continue the species and not joe and joe!

[cereb]

Jul 21, 2011 20:17:20 GMT -5 humok said:

Well I cannot be sold on changing what marriage has alwasy been about. they are free to live together and do what ever. I am just against marriage (to reap benefits) of the same sex so they can feel better and some how make their situation " natural (as in how nature made man and woman). Man was made for woman and woman was made for man to continue the species and not joe and joe!

If Joe and John are committed to each other, living together, raising a family, why shouldn't they have the same benefits and protections under the law as me and mine? Why shouldn't their children have those same benefits as well?

[humok]

Oh...wait ...the child has the same benefits just not the so called spouse...Isn't that what we are really talking about?

[cereb]

Jul 21, 2011 20:21:28 GMT -5 humok said:

Oh...wait ...the child has the same benefits just not the so called spouse...Isn't that what we are really talking about?

Among other issues, that would be one of them. Actually, children of gay parents have to be adopted by one or the other partner. The child does not automatically get the benefit of have both as legal parents because the can't get married in some states.

[mmhmm]

Jul 21, 2011 20:21:28 GMT -5 humok said:

Oh...wait ...the child has the same benefits just not the so called spouse...Isn't that what we are really talking about?

No, he/she does not. Let's say the partners get in an automobile accident. The biological father of the child is killed in the accident. The partner is hospitalized in critical condition. Now, this child has been raised by these two men and loves them both very much; yet, he/she cannot make decisions for the surviving partner should decisions have to be made because he/she is not considered a family member.

[mmhmm]

This message has been deleted Duplicate post.

[cme1201]

Jul 21, 2011 20:36:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 21, 2011 20:21:28 GMT -5 humok said:

Oh...wait ...the child has the same benefits just not the so called spouse...Isn't that what we are really talking about?

No, he/she does not. Let's say the partners get in an automobile accident. The biological father of the child is killed in the accident. The partner is hospitalized in critical condition. Now, this child has been raised by these two men and loves them both very much; yet, he/she cannot make decisions for the surviving partner should decisions have to be made because he/she is not considered a family member.

Knowing that this is the normal situation, a smart partnership would have medical and life power of attorneys drafted and filed so that should something happen to the biological parent the partner has specific granted rights.

[chiver78]

Jul 21, 2011 20:47:41 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jul 21, 2011 20:36:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

No, he/she does not. Let's say the partners get in an automobile accident. The biological father of the child is killed in the accident. The partner is hospitalized in critical condition. Now, this child has been raised by these two men and loves them both very much; yet, he/she cannot make decisions for the surviving partner should decisions have to be made because he/she is not considered a family member.

Knowing that this is the normal situation, a smart partnership would have medical and life power of attorneys drafted and filed so that should something happen to the biological parent the partner has specific granted rights.

any smart partnership would, regardless of the genders involved. the same could be said for Terri Schiavo and her husband - had the legal documents been in place, including a living will, she could have been laid to rest soon after the stroke that left her a shell of her former self.

cme, in addition to the things that mmhmm mentions, I'd like to point out that non-family members are restricted from hospital rooms of patients if the condition is grave enough. there was a couple somewhere in New England recently where the spouse was denied access to the patient because that state didn't recognize the marriage that had been performed in here in MA.

[Deleted]

I think the rule of thumb is:

Someone can always think up a justification for depriving someone else of their rights.

Those same people will never believe that there is any justification for the rights they have to be cut.

That's just nature I guess.

[safeharbor37]

Marriage is not and never has been an inalienable right. It is and always has been regulated by law. There is absolutely no more justification for outlawing polygamy than restricting the legal definition of marriage to members of the opposite sex [male-female only].
The issue of rights is not applicable here. Like driving, it is a privilege granted by law, not the Constitution.
This is not to weigh in on the desirability on same-sex marriage, but only to point out that the issue of "rights" is not an issue here ~ unless you define "rights" as anything you want to do.
My personal preference is to change the term to "civil union" [or some such] for legal purposes and let the Churches deal with the "marriage" issue if they choose to do so. That would really separate Church and State for those are insistent on that.

[Angel!]

Jul 21, 2011 20:19:06 GMT -5 cereb said:

Jul 21, 2011 20:17:20 GMT -5 humok said:

Well I cannot be sold on changing what marriage has alwasy been about.

I agree. We need to get marriage back to what it used to be. Which marriage traditions do we need to bring back to make marriage what it has always been about:

- arranged marriages, forced marriages, dowries, the woman becoming property of the man, the marriage of 30 yr old men to teen girls, do we need to get women back into the kitchen & keep them barefoot & pregnant to get back to what marriage is really supposed to be about?

Marriage has been ever changing since recorded history. This idea that we are messing with something sacred that has been unchanged forever is a bunch of BS. Historically there have been same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages, even relatives marrying each other. So let's step down off the soap-box & stop pretending that today's idea of marriage is somehow what marriage has always historically been or something sacred that can't be changed.

[Deleted]

I agree. We need to get marriage back to what it used to be. Which marriage traditions do we need to bring back to make marriage what it has always been about:

- arranged marriages, forced marriages, dowries, the woman becoming property of the man, the marriage of 30 yr old men to teen girls, do we need to get women back into the kitchen & keep them barefoot & pregnant to get back to what marriage is really supposed to be about?

Angel I think you left out hitting women in the head with clubs & dragging them off. Ah...I miss the old days (before my wife took my club away from me).

[chiver78]

Jul 22, 2011 12:19:54 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I agree. We need to get marriage back to what it used to be. Which marriage traditions do we need to bring back to make marriage what it has always been about:

- arranged marriages, forced marriages, dowries, the woman becoming property of the man, the marriage of 30 yr old men to teen girls, do we need to get women back into the kitchen & keep them barefoot & pregnant to get back to what marriage is really supposed to be about?

Angel I think you left out hitting women in the head with clubs & dragging them off. Ah...I miss the old days (before my wife took my club away from me).

<snort>

karma when I regenerate! I just hit Angel.

[billisonboard]

Jul 22, 2011 11:34:35 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Marriage is not and never has been an inalienable right. It is and always has been regulated by law. There is absolutely no more justification for outlawing polygamy than restricting the legal definition of marriage to members of the opposite sex [male-female only].
The issue of rights is not applicable here. Like driving, it is a privilege granted by law, not the Constitution.
This is not to weigh in on the desirability on same-sex marriage, but only to point out that the issue of "rights" is not an issue here ~ unless you define "rights" as anything you want to do.
My personal preference is to change the term to "civil union" [or some such] for legal purposes and let the Churches deal with the "marriage" issue if they choose to do so. That would really separate Church and State for those are insistent on that.

The "right" in question isn't marriage. As you accurately point out, no such right exists. A right that does exist is equal treatment under the law. I think your stated preference for our civil government to allow all to register their civil union satisfies that right of equal treatment wonderfully.

[Tigerwife3]

Jul 22, 2011 11:34:35 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Marriage is not and never has been an inalienable right. It is and always has been regulated by law. There is absolutely no more justification for outlawing polygamy than restricting the legal definition of marriage to members of the opposite sex [male-female only].
The issue of rights is not applicable here. Like driving, it is a privilege granted by law, not the Constitution.
This is not to weigh in on the desirability on same-sex marriage, but only to point out that the issue of "rights" is not an issue here ~ unless you define "rights" as anything you want to do.
My personal preference is to change the term to "civil union" [or some such] for legal purposes and let the Churches deal with the "marriage" issue if they choose to do so. That would really separate Church and State for those are insistent on that.

And if a church performs and recognizes same sex marriages, is the couple officially married or only united in a civil union?

I was married by a judge. Would my marriage no longer be called a marriage and simply a civil union because it was a civil ceremony?

In the end, I and millions of others will call it what ever we want to call it with no interference from the State or church.

[safeharbor37]

Tw3,
Civil Union would be the legal status. If you choose to call it a marriage, that's up to you. Likewise, a marriage ceremony in a church [or before a justice of the peace] would be optional according to your wishes.
FWIW ~ there are many churches which perform same-sex marriages all the time ~ what is lacking is legal recognition.

[Tigerwife3]

Why not have church services called civil union blessings? That way we get rid of the term marriage and everyone is equal with civul union..

Why do we need two terms for the exact same thing?

[billisonboard]

Jul 22, 2011 13:59:06 GMT -5 Tigerwife3 said:

Why not have church services called civil union blessings? ...

The answer to that is that no one has a right to "have church services called" anything other than what any individual church wants it to be called. What we Americans do have a right to is to have our government issue certificates with whatever we decide is the label we wish to have printed on it. I have no problem with that label being "civil unions". If you want a "Marriage Certificate" there are plenty available for you to print or buy.

[Deleted]

As far as a legal verses a church wedding. A friend of ours got married in a church only wedding about 8 years ago. She did that because as long as the marriage wasn't "legal" she could continue to receive half of her husbands military retirement.

Well she still gets half of the retirement so I'm guessing that the 2 different types of marriage are totally different & NOT EQUAL.

[chiver78]

Jul 22, 2011 14:38:53 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

As far as a legal verses a church wedding. A friend of ours got married in a church only wedding about 8 years ago. She did that because as long as the marriage wasn't "legal" she could continue to receive half of her husbands military retirement.

Well she still gets half of the retirement so I'm guessing that the 2 different types of marriage are totally different & NOT EQUAL.

wow. so much for the sanctity of marriage.

how has she not been arrested for fraud?

[Angel!]

Jul 22, 2011 14:42:02 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 22, 2011 14:38:53 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

As far as a legal verses a church wedding. A friend of ours got married in a church only wedding about 8 years ago. She did that because as long as the marriage wasn't "legal" she could continue to receive half of her husbands military retirement.

Well she still gets half of the retirement so I'm guessing that the 2 different types of marriage are totally different & NOT EQUAL.

wow. so much for the sanctity of marriage.

how has she not been arrested for fraud?

Is it really fraud? She hasn't legally married the guy, she just had a church ceremony. The church marriage & state marriage are 2 completely different things.

If she lives in a common law state though, then she might start running into trouble. Otherwise I don't really see an issue.

[billisonboard]

Jul 22, 2011 15:10:01 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 22, 2011 14:42:02 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

wow. so much for the sanctity of marriage.

how has she not been arrested for fraud?

Is it really fraud? She hasn't legally married the guy, she just had a church ceremony. The church marriage & state marriage are 2 completely different things.

If she lives in a common law state though, then she might start running into trouble. Otherwise I don't really see an issue.

oldtex doesn't indicate why she is getting "half her husband's military retirement." I would think we would be talking about either an "ex" or a deceased husband. If the retired military person is still alive I would say it is up to him to deal with her since he is the one being ripped off. If he is deceased, then I have a real problem with it since we (the taxpayers) are the ones being ripped off.

[handyman2]

Don't know about all states but here in NC and GA. For a marriage to be legal you must get a marriage license and the marriage can be preformed by a registered minister, justice of the peace, a civil judge or any person authorized to preform weddings.
No civil license and not recorded at the county court where the supposed marriage took place is not a legal marriage. So the lady is not guilty of fraud since her marriage is not legal. They from a legal standpoint are just living togather.

[cereb]

Jul 22, 2011 12:11:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 21, 2011 20:19:06 GMT -5 cereb said:

Jul 21, 2011 20:17:20 GMT -5 humok said:

Well I cannot be sold on changing what marriage has alwasy been about.

I agree. We need to get marriage back to what it used to be. Which marriage traditions do we need to bring back to make marriage what it has always been about:

- arranged marriages, forced marriages, dowries, the woman becoming property of the man, the marriage of 30 yr old men to teen girls, do we need to get women back into the kitchen & keep them barefoot & pregnant to get back to what marriage is really supposed to be about?

Marriage has been ever changing since recorded history. This idea that we are messing with something sacred that has been unchanged forever is a bunch of BS. Historically there have been same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages, even relatives marrying each other. So let's step down off the soap-box & stop pretending that today's idea of marriage is somehow what marriage has always historically been or something sacred that can't be changed.

Angel, just to be clear, i didn't make that statement. I quoted someone else.

[ungenteel]

how could fighting anybody's right be considered a "value"?

[zipity]

Like driving, it is a privilege granted by law, not the Constitution.

And like driving you can't deny gays a driver's license because they are gay. Not allowing gays to marry was denying their equal rights under the MA constitution, which is why gay marriage is allowed here.

Don't know about all states but here in NC and GA. For a marriage to be legal you must get a marriage license and the marriage can be preformed by a registered minister, justice of the peace, a civil judge or any person authorized to preform weddings.

Personally I don't believe states have all that much to say about it. My wife and I got married while out of the country on vacation. We never filed any forms in the US. When we got back she legally had her name changed and that was that. IMO, the fed accepting our joint tax return is all the license we needed.

Bachmann's husband, Marcus is a therapist and according to the left, he has committed a horrible crime. He used therapy to help gays who did not want to be gay any more change.

And wasn't overly successful according to those he treated. Not a bad sounding career however, maybe when I retire I'll become a therapist to help republicans who don't want to be republican anymore. After all we know they weren't born that way, it was a choice and they are always trying to get the rest of us to endorse their republican agenda. Turn them all into independents so they can enjoy a more normal life style. Teach them that paying taxes for government spending you agree with isn't a bad thing.

[mmhmm]

Jul 23, 2011 4:29:50 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

You can argue about marriage till your blue in the face. Marriage is simply NOT a govt institution but an institution ordained by God. It wasn't a creation of the State.

Skuze me? I was married for over 36 years. We did not purchase our marriage license from God. There was no God involved in our marriage. My husband and I did not believe in God, but both of us always felt the choice to believe or not to believe lay with the individual. I still feel that way. Not everyone believes as you do, Snerdley.

[chiver78]

Jul 23, 2011 6:40:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 23, 2011 4:29:50 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

You can argue about marriage till your blue in the face. Marriage is simply NOT a govt institution but an institution ordained by God. It wasn't a creation of the State.

Skuze me? I was married for over 36 years. We did not purchase our marriage license from God. There was no God involved in our marriage. My husband and I did not believe in God, but both of us always felt the choice to believe or not to believe lay with the individual. I still feel that way. Not everyone believes as you do, Snerdley.