Massachusetts High Court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

[chequita guevara]

ABC Evening News reported last night 58% of Americans oppose a Consitutional Amendment prohibtting gay marriage. They would rather it be an issue for individual states.

[Japher]

I just got back from lunch... While I ate (a delicious Quizno's sub, by the way) I listened to Sean Hannity, because I am a losser and have no friends to eat with. As many of you know I love my conservative talk radio, but I can't believe what they (Hannity, Rush, the whole gambit...) are saying about this issue. Sean actually was saying that the judges found a loop hole and don't know how to interpret the law. He said that "who you are" and "what you are" are to different things determined by behavior, and that homosexuality is a behavior.

OMFG! I wanted to jump into the radio and smack him up side the head. This country is suppose to be about freedom and the judicial court is suppose to be blind and religion is not suppose to influence law and governing is not suppose to be ruling!

It may not be a shock to you that they said something like, but I rarely disagree with my radio brainwashers... This is a life changing event for me. I am ashamed to be a Republican right now, because of one loud mout biggot... and it's not me this time.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The state can encourage children just fine without oppresing childless couples.

What "oppression" are you talking about? Any time perks are provided to one group over another, you have state sanctioned favoritism. Sometimes it's called affirmative action, sometimes college grant programs, sometimes it's called marriage.

There is nothing in the marriage contract that inherently is superior for raising children.

Sure there is. There are tax breaks and financial protections. You can't call that nothing. Unmarried couples also get a few tax breaks, but not as many as married ones. In a married household, if one parent sacrifices his or her working career to be a child caregiver, that parent is entitled to alimony if the other parents leaves. This happens often enough that responsible parents-to-be should seriously consider marriage.

[Guynemer]

It never ceases to amaze me what a high proportion of Republicans on Apolyton are pro-gay marriage.

I just wish y'all would get out there and start knocking heads within your party to get them to see the light.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Japher,

Talk radio is most times amusing, infrequently informative.

I listen to Hannity for entertainment but your dead on, when it comes to issues of personal liberties he's dead wrong. Listen to (libertarian) Boortz instead. Besides he's infinitely more funny.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by gunkulator


What "oppression" are you talking about?

Not all related to gay marriage/adoption, but to satisfy your curiosity:

1) legal employment discrimination

2) dishonorable discharge from military

3) for lesbians who gave birth to their own child -- threat of having their child legally kidnapped

4) religious funadmentals sanctioning degradation of gays and lesbians through their rhetoric

5) denial of hospital visitation rights of a gay partner who is aggrieved by his/her partner's hospitalization, as well as staff's refusal to recognize their very human dignity

6) lack of partner-based health insurance benefits

7) complications for inheritance from one partner to another, in the case of one partner's death

8) any other examples that I have failed to mention here

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Sure there is. There are tax breaks and financial protections. . . . Unmarried couples also get a few tax breaks, but not as many as married ones. In a married household, if one parent sacrifices his or her working career to be a child caregiver, that parent is entitled to alimony if the other parents leaves.

Unmarried couples with children get all the same tax breaks and credits that married couples do. It's called Head of Household, and all the exemptions, deductions, and credits apply. The only difference between my family and an unmarried one is I can claim my wife as a dependent, where I couldn't before.

[Ramo]

Was there any evidence in the Massachusetts case that the practical effect of "marriage" differed from "civil union" in any tangible way?

Let's say we change the legal definition of person and say that it only applies to non-blacks. And we make a new category to represent black human beings called "n*ggers." "N*ggers" would have all the same legal rights as persons, but it's just a different term. Nothing wrong with that, right? This certainly wouldn't affect blacks in any tangible way, right?

[MrFun]

Don't you just love the power of words when it comes to law and legislation??

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The only difference between my family and an unmarried one is I can claim my wife as a dependent, where I couldn't before.

Ah, so you've made my point for me. Thank you. MrFun lists a few more perks that are exclusive to married partners.

MrFun: You are confusing gay marriage discrimination with discrimination against gays in general. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with marriage. 3 I don't believe, or at least I don't believe it is widespread enough to be the norm. 4 is you being upset with people excercising their rights to free speech. 5 is a small, but valid point. 6 is for the moment a private matter between you and your employer, which hopefully will go away altogether when we get socialized medicine. 7 is a serious matter for everyone that is easily solved by writing a will.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Ah, so you've made my point for me. Thank you. MrFun lists a few more perks that are exclusive to married partners.

MrFun: You are confusing gay marriage discrimination with discrimination against gays in general. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with marriage. 3 I don't believe, or at least I don't believe it is widespread enough to be the norm. 4 is you being upset with people excercising their rights to free speech. 5 is a small, but valid point. 6 is for the moment a private matter between you and your employer, which hopefully will go away altogether when we get socialized medicine. 7 is a serious matter for everyone that is easily solved by writing a will.

. . . . and notice in my post that I admitted they are not exclusive in concern with gay marriage/adoption.

[gunkulator]

True, I was just trying to bring your point into the context of the thread. Point taken.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MrFun
5) denial of hospital visitation rights of a gay partner who is aggrieved by his/her partner's hospitalization, as well as staff's refusal to recognize their very human dignity

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

5 is worth consideration even if it is an infrequent one.

7 is a valid concern regardless of whether a will satisfies the concern. I suppose because a will needs to be written next thing we would hear from the lefties is that Gays need to be compensated for legal fees to draw up said will. Baaaah! Simplify the equation and allow the same default status wherein upon probate unless otherwise stated by will last testament property reverts to sole ownership of spouse.

[MrFun]

But now to argue with each of your counter-points . . . .

Originally posted by gunkulator


Ah, so you've made my point for me. Thank you. MrFun lists a few more perks that are exclusive to married partners.

MrFun: You are confusing gay marriage discrimination with discrimination against gays in general. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with marriage.

see above post

Originally posted by gunkulator
3 I don't believe, or at least I don't believe it is widespread enough to be the norm.

I remember reading in a newspaper a couple of years ago, that a lesbian mother was threatened with the loss of her biological child by another homophobic family member -- wish I remembered the details. But the fact that this is even possible, is horrible enough.

Originally posted by gunkulator
4 is you being upset with people excercising their rights to free speech.

Nazi Germany had an effective propaganda system that dehumanized Jews, homosexuals, and every other minority group in Germany. This is, to a much less extreme, what the religious fundamentals are doing, whether they want to admit it or not.

Originally posted by gunkulator
5 is a small, but valid point.

There is nothing small about someone visiting a loved one who is hospitalized.

Originally posted by gunkulator
6 is for the moment a private matter between you and your employer, which hopefully will go away altogether when we get socialized medicine.

Indeed, it is privatized -- some companies such as Disney and others have made progress towards equalizing this regardless of sexual orientation. But this is still a fact that this discrimination is widespread yet.

Originally posted by gunkulator
7 is a serious matter for everyone that is easily solved by writing a will.

I'm sure that drafting a will is more complicated of a process for a gay couple that it is for a straight couple -- I believe gay couples have to manuever through a larger labyrinth of loopholes to create a will that will stand just as strong as a will from a straight couple.