Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
That's why I advocate to scrap the idea of giving taxes/subsidies benefits to couples altogether, on the sole basis they're couple. I rather advocate that such benefits only come from the presence of children in rearing age.

That's not what you implied...your statement said it was "absurd" to provide gay couples with the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

If instead you meant it's absurd to provide couples without kids as with the same benefits as couples with kids, that's different, but then your singling out gay couples in this regard is fallacious, since gay couples can and do have children.

[mindseye]

Editorial time: Please allow me to attempt to put this debate into perspective with the musings of a gay person - someone who has a little more at stake in this debate than most here.

You know, there is one aspect to the gay marriage debate that particularly sticks in my craw.

Straight people often spend vast amounts of time, money, and energy in planning, celebrating and commemorating their weddings. Many speak of their wedding day as one of - if not the - most important and happiest day of their life.

Yet, many of the same people are utterly cavalier in denying the same "happiest day of their life" experience to the sizeable percentage of the population who happen to, for no reason of their own choosing, love someone of the same gender.

And for what reason? Appeals to "traditions" that are anything but traditional? Concerns that a gay person's marriage will somehow threaten their own? Or how about all of those who say they don't in principle mind gay unions, but are "uncomfortable" with gay marriages on equal footing with their own?

I am to be denied the right to marry my life-mate because someone doesn’t approve of my choice of partner? Did they consult me when they made their choice? Personally, I wouldn't dream of interjecting my judgement on someone else's choice of life-mate. But many sure seem to feel welcome to judge mine.

I'm sorry, but many of the arguments against gay marriage seem at core to be downright mean-spirited. Why shouldn’t gay people also enjoy that "happiest day of their life"? All eight of my siblings were able to proudly march down the aisle with their chosen life-mate. But I can't with mine.

I'm not at all pleased about that, and I'm not willing to be fobbed off with excuses about "discomfort", "threats" to the institution of marriage, or phony appeals to traditions that never were. These same lame arguments were trundled out against inter-racial marriage, but we had the good sense to change those laws because they were fundamentally unfair. People don't choose their skin color any more than they choose their sexual orientation - and neither is a good reason to bar someone from marrying the person they love.

And I'm really displeased with being asked to accept a second-class "civil union", as if my partner were somehow a second-class person, not equal to my siblings' spouses.



And finally, how do you think gay people feel when they are invited to weddings? Did you ever think about that?

Let me tell you what it feels like: it's just like being a black guy invited to celebrate a co-worker's house-warming in a neighborhood that forbids blacks from buying homes. You are torn between your happiness for your friend, and the knowledge that you are being asked to celebrate something that others, for no fair reason, deny you the opportunity of enjoying.

I want a happiest day of my life, too. Not a "same thing with a second-class name" happiest day, either.

[mindseye]

By the way, the many straight posters here who have argued so eloquently on behalf of gay marriage (in this and other threads) have earned my very sincerest admiration. I hope some day I can invite you to my wedding!

(I plan to throw the bouquet/garter directly to Ramo)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mindseye
And finally, how do you think gay people feel when they are invited to weddings? Did you ever think about that?

I don't know about you, but I am always thrilled. Of course, all of my friends who have gotten married or will get married would also have no problem with me be allowed to legally marry another man, should I for some inexplicable reason want to commit such an act of social suicide.

[Spiffor]

Boris:
I'm having a cautious stance toward the idea of homos raising children, since we don't know yet how much a single-sex family can affect a kid -much like we didn't know well what the impact of being a child in a one-adult-family was before divorce was widespread.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not hostile, but I merely think gay adoption should be experimented before being widely spread (it is the kind of stance I have every time I'm not sure about the consequences of a political action, such as the introduction of GMOs).

But I am sure homo couples can give as much love and understanding to the children they raise as hetero couples.

What I'm pinpointing is that, for now, homo couples having children are the exception, while hetero couples having children are the norm. As such, if tax/subsidies benefits are to be granted on the basis of being a couple, then they should be first granted to hetero couples. Now, as I said in my previous post, I think such benefits shouldn't be attributed to couples on the basis they are couples; but rather attributed on the basis they have children in rearing age or not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What I'm pinpointing is that, for now, homo couples having children are the exception, while hetero couples having children are the norm. As such, if tax/subsidies benefits are to be granted on the basis of being a couple, then they should be first granted to hetero couples. Now, as I said in my previous post, I think such benefits shouldn't be attributed to couples on the basis they are couples; but rather attributed on the basis they have children in rearing age or not.

What a bunch of unneccessary convulusions. The crux of what you said lies here:

"Now, as I said in my previous post, I think such benefits shouldn't be attributed to couples on the basis they are couples; but rather attributed on the basis they have children in rearing age or not."

So if gay couples have children (by whatever means, as we're not discussing their being allowed to adopt--separate issue), is there any reason to deny them the same benefits for that as a heterosexual couple? No, of course not--because the benefits are primarily there for the sake of the children.

Why establish a heirarchy of "heterosexual before homosexual" in this regard? Why should the genders of the parents make any difference when it concerns benefits geared towards children?

[Spiffor]

Wow, Mindseye, it was a great editorial

Boris:
Well, I expressed myself badly then. I forgot to imply that, to me, these benefits only reward the service provided by couples, ie making and raising children. That's why I think providing these benefits on basis of the marital status is absurd IMHO. But if such absurd system was to continue, then it would be even more absurd to give the same benefits to gay couples as to hetero couples, because in today's world, children are the norm in hetero couples, while they are the exception in homo couples.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't know about you, but I am always thrilled.

Consider yourself lucky. I have been invited to weddings of couples (e.g. co-workers) who would definitely not approve of me marrying another guy.

These are the ones that provoke the wrenching emotional reactions. Friends and family who have no problem with my lifestyle are no issue.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So if gay couples have children (by whatever means, as we're not discussing their being allowed to adopt--separate issue), is there any reason to deny them the same benefits for that as a heterosexual couple?

Absolutely not. It would be discrimination of the worst kind.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
That's why I think providing these benefits on basis of the marital status is absurd IMHO. But if such absurd system was to continue, then it would be even more absurd to give the same benefits to gay couples as to hetero couples, because in today's world, children are the norm in hetero couples, while they are the exception in homo couples.

But this is still arbitrary discrimination, because there are benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with children, and there is a societal benefit to encouraging gays to form stable, monogomous relationships. Even Ben K has acknowledged that in the past.

When talking about legally granting benefits, I want to know what would be wrong with granting gays the rights of marriage. How would it hurt you, your kids, or society to allow gay marriages? Where is there any evidence that the societies that have allowed it have suffered any ill effects?

Any limit to the legal rights of a group of people shouldn't be based on any other considerations. What beyond stolid tradition is the problem?

[CharlesBHoff]

In europe than man could have two wifes legal as there where Church marriage and common law marriage. Than civil or criminal law state judge have no power to effect church marriage at all. The Church refuse to recoign common law marriage as being legal by cannon law. To have than church wedding you have to be petty wealth, the Serf own the land they farm by ancient Roman law no matter how deep in debt they where than nobleman was unable to legal
throw the serf off the land in fact the noble didnot want to as they worked their land and the noble land. Common Law marriage have nothing to do with judge. Than Man and Woman of poor standing just have to declare thenself marry to each other in public in front of friends. Common Law marriage have all the same right as marraige by Church and cannot be ended by than judge unless the couple or one of then ask for than end to it. The Noble class support Common
Law marriage as it allow the serf be happy marriage an happy serf is than hard working serf. There where case of the noble class useing common law marriage to marry the serf woman he love of than female noble marrying the serf man she love. The noble class rarerly marry for love but for other reason like political alliance, power, wealth and etc.
In fact than illegimate child of royality can become than King or Queen was the reason the royal class kept track of all their love affair.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
When talking about legally granting benefits, I want to know what would be wrong with granting gays the rights of marriage. How would it hurt you, your kids, or society to allow gay marriages? Where is there any evidence that the societies that have allowed it have suffered any ill effects?

Save for the reactionaries, it won't bother anyone
I'm all for gay marriage, because I think gays should not be barred the right to experience this great symbol and display of love. Mindseye wrote it brilliantly.

My quibble was only about tax/subsidies benefits that go to couples, in a system where they depend on marital status. Now, if you say that couples provide other services to society than children, then I'm all for it, that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, get these benefits. My quibble was about children, because the presence of a child in a family significantly depends on its sexual orientation, although this may change in the future.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My quibble was only about tax/subsidies benefits that go to couples, in a system where they depend on marital status. Now, if you say that couples provide other services to society than children, then I'm all for it, that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, get these benefits. My quibble was about children, because the presence of a child in a family significantly depends on its sexual orientation, although this may change in the future.

Certain benefits go to married couples regardless of their status vis-a-vis children. Among the most important to gays include inheritance rights, hospital visitations, legal authority as next of kin, joint property ownership, etc.

I can understand granting benefits solely on children status--if you have children, whatever kind of couple you are, you get tax breaks/credits/etc. I can understand just granting such benefits to all couples who decide to enter a union as well, since beyond the issue of fostering children, it fosters more stability in society as a whole.

But I still don't comprehend why you're singling out homosexuals in these examples, because even the "worst case" example here is a monogomous, childless gay couple who wants to be legally wed. So the issue becomes what's the drawback to allowing them to do so, and thus conferring on them the above non-children related benefits?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So the issue becomes what's the drawback to allowing them to do so, and thus conferring on them the above non-children related benefits?

No drawback at all.
I only singled out homosexual couples on the children issue. For everything else, the sexual orientation has nothing to do with the topic of the benefits, and sexual orientation should not been taken into account at all.

I must have really expressed myself badly if you think I mean homosexual couples have drawbacks in comparison to hetero couples. I don't think homo / hetero couples will make any difference, except in their handling of children.

[Rogan Josh]