Massachusetts High Court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

[mindseye]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Because the heterosexual relationship may - in fact usually will - include the possibility that the relationship will result in a family being founded, that is the birth of children.

(...)

Whetreas the notion of marriage is linked to the idea of family and procreation.

I can't believe anyone would trot this old nag out again.

EST, could you maybe explain why heterosexuals incapable of having children (infertile, or past the age) are allowed to get married? No one seems to have any problem about that. But more importantly (listen up, now): gay people can have kids, too! And many already do! Even within a gay relationship!

This can't possibly be news to you, can it?

I can only very vaguely intuit what a homosexual or lesbian couple might feel about that. The fact that they sometimes wish to adopt suggests they may have a hankering to procreate and to found a family. But this is not something much articulated.

"But this is something not much articulated".

What does it take to "articulate" it? Th controversy about gay's having and adopting children has been widely discussed in the media. He11, it's being discussed right now in this forum in another thread!

[chequita guevara]

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.

My point you claim proves your point has nothing to do with children. My point was that the state provides no extra protection for married families with children than to unmarried families with children except if one of the partners isn't working, which isn't that common anymore.

Neither does anything that MrFun write prove your point. MrFun is pointing out methods by which the state discriminates against gay families. Rather than promoting families with children, the state tends to hurt families with children if the parents are gay.

[MrFun]

thanks, Che

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by MrFun

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.

Something you read about exactly one time in a paper a few years ago hardly sounds like a huge social problem. OTOH, all a woman has to do today is accuse a man of being a child molester with no proof whatsoever, and *poof*, that's the end of a man's parental rights.

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.

Time for Godwin's law aready? While I have no love for fundies, I would be more frightened of a world where they were refused the right to speak their mind on the grounds that, hey, they might make someone feel bad.

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

Fair enough. I suggest a power of attorney, or some other legal document that grants partners the right of hospitial visitation.

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.

Employers aren't legally required to give spouses any insurance at all. They are also allowed to discriminate with different compensation plans (including insurance) for different workers. Again, this makes it between you and your employer. One point though: a fundamentalist Mormon with 15 wives and 60 children could also claim the fictional "right to health insurance because we're married". Not exactly fair to your employer, though, is it?

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.

I doubt it, however I'm not an attorney.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Something you read about exactly one time in a paper a few years ago hardly sounds like a huge social problem. OTOH, all a woman has to do today is accuse a man of being a child molester with no proof whatsoever, and *poof*, that's the end of a man's parental rights.

It's not the frequency that matters -- it's the injustice.

Originally posted by gunkulator
Time for Godwin's law aready? While I have no love for fundies, I would be more frightened of a world where they were refused the right to speak their mind on the grounds that, hey, they might make someone feel bad.

My point with using Nazi Germany as an example, is to show how rhetoric and propaganda used for targetting minority groups often seeks to degrade them as somehow being less worthy than other people. This is what fundies are doing. No one has the right to be free from being offended, but there is nothing respectable about degrading a minority group with rhetoric and propaganda.

Originally posted by gunkulator
Fair enough. I suggest a power of attorney, or some other legal document that grants partners the right of hospitial visitation.

Nope, that's not fair either -- give us the same easy access to visitation rights that straight couples take for granted.

Originally posted by gunkulator
Employers aren't legally required to give spouses any insurance at all. They are also allowed to discriminate with different compensation plans (including insurance) for different workers. Again, this makes it between you and your employer. One point though: a fundamentalist Mormon with 15 wives and 60 children could also claim the fictional "right to health insurance because we're married". Not exactly fair to your employer, though, is it?

You're right -- but for companies that DO provide insurance, they should recognize the ethical obligation to apply it equally, regardless of sexual orientation. As for your polygamy example -- it smells like a strawman. But let's hypothetically assume your example is legitimate -- it would be financially impratical for any company to have such an insurance policy for polygamists. But there would be no such great financial burden to expand insurance coverage to monogamous gay couples.

Originally posted by gunkulator
I doubt it, however I'm not an attorney.

Read up on what gays have to deal with because of their lack of the same legal protection that heterosexuals take for granted. Gay couples have to manuever through loopholes that straight couples never have to bother with.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MrFun

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.

I can't speak for US jurisdictions but it is no more complicated in Canada. Unmarried folks generally can't take advantage of a number of legislative presumptions (in the absence of a will . . .). These presumptions vary province by province.

However once you get down to what a person actually owns themselves and can will away ( after taking away any matrimonial proprty, joint assets or assests to which parties can claim an interest in as they arise from a common-law type relationship or are necessary for the support of your dependents). Once you get down to the stuff you can actually will away, we are talking assets over which you have complete control . . . you can will them to whomever you choose whether it be family, your life long partner or a charity for misunderstood cats. being gay or staright or the natiure of your relationship to the beneficiary (absent duress) should be irrelevant

[MrFun]

I would think that natural family members who are homophobic and greedy can more easily challenge a will between two people in a gay marriage.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
EST, could you maybe explain why heterosexuals incapable of having children (infertile, or past the age) are allowed to get married? No one seems to have any problem about that. But more importantly (listen up, now): gay people can have kids, too! And many already do! Even within a gay relationship!

Excluding lesbians and the obvious answer of adoption, how?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Excluding lesbians and the obvious answer of adoption, how?

Excluding lesbians? Excluding half of gay people? Well, I guess that narrows it down a little.

Anyway, regarding the other (male) half of gay people, gay men can (and do) sire children. Usually (not always) it is through artificial insemination. Sometimes it is through regular intercourse with a woman.

Dino, didn't you have that "birds and bees" talk with your father yet?

[Theben]

To that extent, the court ruling as explained in this thread, seems to me to be based on a silly proposition. To apply different terminology to different things is not dangerous per se. It is treating one person worse than another for no good reason that is demonstrably damaging.

Under the most altruistic circumstances, I agree with you. The idea of 'separate but equal' was also meant to be applied with the same ideals, but fell far short when the cold hard reality set in that there are people out there, some in positions of authority, that don't want to see interracial couples, let alone same-sex couples (as evidenced on this board). Then the 'different terminology' becomes pretty damn important, especially in the legal arena. One can legally apply different rules to different terminologies with much greater ease.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

Hannity is a Republican. He is not the Republican Party. You seem to not be able to make that distinction.

Did YOU know that all but one of the Massachuettes Supreme Court who made this ruling are REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

See my post above. The Mass Supreme Court is 6 Republicans, 1 Democrat.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


My point you claim proves your point has nothing to do with children. My point was that the state provides no extra protection for married families with children than to unmarried families with children except if one of the partners isn't working, which isn't that common anymore.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ned



And the conservative SCOTUS would likely uphold it as well if I were a betting man.

Unfortunately the problem lies in (IMHO) Bush's choice to highlight it in the State of the Union. I said it then and say it now. It was ill advised.

[JohnT]

I'm still trying to figure out how the upcoming MrFun/Starchild nuptials will make Laura love me less.