Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Ned]

Bezerker, unless gays make good parents so that gay families should be encouraged just as much as traditional familes, I do not think we should be encouraging gay families. This is not simply a equal rights issue. It has to do a lot with having and raising kids.

Furthermore, the norm for hetero couples is to have kids and to raise them. This is not the norm for gay couples, another reason why such couples should not be default be given the incentives that we now give maried couples.

Still, such unions should be recognized and be given default legal protection, IMO. If you want to call these unions "marriage," so be it. However they might be called single-sex marriages to distinguish them from traditional marriages under the law.

[Berzerker]

Ned - I believe the state should treat people equally, not play favorites, so it doesn't matter much to me if homosexuals are better or worse parents. But I don't know where you got the idea I support homosexual "marriage".

[MrFun]

Leave marriage for religion -- allow for equality through secular unions.

[Berzerker]

Why should the government be involved with unions or marriage?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ned - I believe the state should treat people equally, not play favorites, so it doesn't matter much to me if homosexuals are better or worse parents. But I don't know where you got the idea I support homosexual "marriage".

Equality: People yes, but marital status, no. I have asked this same question numerous times in various of these gay marriage threads whether the equal protection clause prevents the government from biasing our laws in favor of traditional families. It has actually done so for as long as I can remember. Is this long-standing practice unconstitutional?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why should the government be involved with unions or marriage?

Inheritance issues for starters.

[Ned]

In "Kali-"fornia, we have community property. All the money earned by either spouse during the marriage is mutually owned as community property. This become the property of the other spouse by operation of law upon death, for example. But, until then, both spouses can spend the community property and incur debts that can be satisfied with the community property.

I can only imagine the disputes this might cause gay couples who could spend each others income without even consulting their spouse.

[Kuciwalker]

The same disputes it causes straight couples

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Ned
I can only imagine the disputes this might cause gay couples who could spend each others income without even consulting their spouse.

OK. My last comment on this thread I stated that I would have no futher input to it .... but COME ON!!! I HAVE to comment on this one!

I, myself, am a retired soldier attending universtiy fulltime. I bring in about 1,400.00 per month (after taxes) per month. Comparatively speaking, my partner brings in about 4,800.00 per month (after taxes) ...

Now I ask you - Who is living on whoms money?!?

And we're not married ... at least not yet.

[Wittlich]

Oh, and no. I don't have to consult with my partner prior to my spendings (nor does he with me) - within reason, of course! But ALL of our accounts are jointly owned/controlled and have been for 14 years now.

[Berzerker]

Dino -

Inheritance issues for starters.

That isn't about marriage, people who aren't married leave inheritances. There is no reason for government to be involved with marriage, just property (inheritance) and custody which is a result of divorce.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
There is no reason for government to be involved with marriage, just property (inheritance) and custody which is a result of divorce.

Am I the only one that spots the disconnect here?

[MrFun]

Look, I argue that non-heterosexuals are entitled to equal privileges through legally recognized secular civil unions for pratical reasons -- as well as giving due respect to stable, monogamous relationships between two people regardless of sexual orientation.

The different religions can sort out their own issues. But again, I ask this -- didn't the government intervene with religion when it ruled that prohibitions against interracial marriages were unconstitutional??

[Berzerker]

Am I the only one that spots the disconnect here?

Yes.

[Ramo]

I'd get to your post, but I'm not feeling that masochistic at the moment.