MA court approves same-sex marriages: what do you think?

Hi...

Joe, I do agree with you that divorce is way over done these days, diminishing the whole meaning of marriage in some ways. Divorce can be very ugly business, and John, you are right as well - I guess figuring out how to deal with that is part of the package.

Sad but true...

DG

I'm finding this debate somewhat ironic. Until recently, marriage was about alliances and advantageous partnerships. Love was not neccessarily involved. Think arrange marriages...even today, they exist in some countries and/or within religions.

More later... I got a phone call.

Re: Interesting subject...

Well, I think buggery is beautiful so long as I'm not on the down side of it. AIDS is doing a pretty good job of thinning the crowd out, so we heterosexuals have no fear of becoming a minority. There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not? Time will demonstrate what works. And if you can't wait for the ending, read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. History always repeats itself - until we get the lesson.

Re: Re: Interesting subject...

satsang said:

Well, I think buggery is beautiful so long as I'm not on the down side of it.

Click to expand...

You mean, the receiving end?

AIDS is doing a pretty good job of thinning the crowd out, so we heterosexuals have no fear of becoming a minority.

Click to expand...

Are you, by any chance, saying that only homosexuals have AIDS? Boy, I didn't know that so many people in Africa were gay.

There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not? Time will demonstrate what works.

Click to expand...

Care to explain what this part about?

And if you can't wait for the ending, read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. History always repeats itself - until we get the lesson.

Click to expand...

Which trail? Are you trying to tell us that the Roman Empire collapsed because of gay people...?

Hi Satsang and welcome to Golden Skate. Your first post and already we know so much about you.

I think Windspirit has said pretty much what the majority of others would say, including me, but hey, you don't have to change your beliefs. Tell us more especially about Dance.

Joesitz

Joesitz said:

Hi Satsang and welcome to Golden Skate. Your first post and already we know so much about you.

Joesitz

Click to expand...

You're the master, Joe.

Mathman

There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not?

Click to expand...

I think I can safely assume that you're not from the United States. Health care certainly isn't free here.

AIDS has killed drug users, too, as well as innocent babies. It doesn't discriminate nor does Cancer or any other disease. If these 'killers' don't discriminate, I don't see why we should either.

Wow. GSers are WAY off from the average American. In a recent Gallup poll, 59% were against any kind of gay union, 41% for. Most who were against it based their feelings on religious reasons. And the more people thought about it, the more they were against gay unions.

Five years ago, the results of the same poll were only 51% against gay unions, 49% for. So something has changed. I say it's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." People want the Fab Five to redecorate their apartments, but they get scared when they think about Carson marrying Jai.

Of course I'm being facetious. It's a serious issue. ITA, Mathman, this particular issue introduces the possibility of a constitutional right never forseen by the founding fathers. But that's been happening all along--with women and the vote; blacks considered as people, much less citizens; and about 12 billion issues having to do with the Internet alone and technology. For example, although a number of states have changed their laws recently, for a very long time it was fine to visually tape a person without them knowing it as long as you didn't audio tape them. So your boss could set up a hidden camera in the employees' bathrooms and have every right to video tape you, just as long as he didn't tape the sound of you flushing.

Technology can make for difficult legal things to unravel, of course, but societal changes, especially ones involvingsex really hit people where they live--in the very cells that make life. Doggiegirl, Heyang, Mathman, and others have spoken eloquently on this and I've made my other poll results contribution. I voted for full marriage rights. Despite the fact that for most people marriage is a religious act, in the eyes of the state it's about $20 bucks, a blood test, and a certificate you get at the courthouse. In NYC, the hot dog vendor at the court house gives you and yours free hot dogs if you got married. How's that for saving on catering costs? Anyway, my point is that anytime you have something that overlaps religion and state issues, people are going to have VERY strong feelings on both sides. I think one can get easily cut off living in NY. I know when I visit relatives in "America" one of the first things I have to get used to is the second-nature gay bashing.

Interesting discussion about love. The way things are now, it's perfectly fine for a man and woman who don't love each other to marry, but absolutely against the law for two men or two women who love each other to marry. So depending on your genitalia, you either can or cannot marry the person you love and who loves you.

OT: Anybody know if there are laws re hermaphrodites? What about people who've had sex-change operations? Can't imagine the founding fathers envisioned that last one.
Rgirl

IMO the easiest and fairest solution to most of these issues would be to allow insurance coverage, tax breaks and all of that to households no matter what relationship or gender the household is made up of. For example adult children living back at home or elderly parents who have moved back in with their children. Families/households should be honored no matter what their make up. As for child custody, SS and other death benefits for survivors all could be determined by making it mandatory that everyone keep a current will/will type documents that clearly spell out one's wishes.

None of this would take away from the institution of marriage or the traditional family unit, but would recognize and legitimize all of the different kinds of families/households that exist in today's world. As for added benefits and perks of being a married couple, JMO but isn't the relationship itself it's own reward? Why should those who haven't found Mr., Ms., Mrs., or Miss Right not be entitled to the same financial advantages/benefits of those who have? What difference should it be to an insurance company insuring a family of four whether the "family" consists of mom, dad, a sixteen y/o, and a 12 y/o or a family of four consisting of mom, her adult son, her widowed sister (or substitute girll friend, boyfriend, cousin , or uncle) ,and the adult son's ten year old daughter?

Piel

Hi all...

My stance is for equal "rights" along with equal responsbilities. To me that means legal / financial benefits AND legal / financial responsibilities.

Piel, I have to ask what you mean by "equal households." There has to be some form of legal tie (husband/wife; partner/partner; mother / child; father child; etc.) for anything financial to matter here in the US, regardless of other preferances. You mention the benefits, but there are responsibilities as well. Tax consequences, etc. Child support, etc. Financial support for Gov programs, etc.

In the case of an extended family unit including aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, widowed sisters, etc. as relates to health insurance in the US system, I DON'T want to pay those premiums for all my relatives. Health care costs lots of money, and all of us pay for it. There is no Money Tree on the White House Lawn. Sorry. We have a very advanced (supposedly) medical care system in this country, but to keep the costs remotely reasonable, there has to be containment on some level. If you suggest an alternative system which would not raise the costs, but factually cover more extended family members, I'm all ears. But I doubt that's really possible in the US system, which is based on a "real" spread of "actual" costs.

DG


Getting back to the immediate parties.... allow the unions I say. Let's not "legislate" (by requiring) wills. Frankly, wills are not the end all be all anyway based on my personal experience. A trust was a far better option - more money to set it up, but more secure financially in the long run. This is a great option too for extended family if you feel they should be protected under the umbrella of your personal assets.

Many, many people like to invoke my name in this contentious debate. They attribute all kinds of wacky sayings and attitudes to me, which annoys the Hell out of me, and is one of the many ways to get on my Smite List. But enough about my Earth-flooding wrath... What do I really think about gay marriage?

Well, being God, I see lots of weird things. Still, I wasn't very comfortable with "alternative lifestyles" in the beginning. Things were just a little too malleable, just a little too fluid, and just a little too complicated. especially since humans had 14 different genders then (having to build 14 separate restrooms for every facility was a pain). But then came the big turning point in my life... I had a kid!

I thought I'd give him the full mortal experience by leaving him with a human family, at least, that's what I told myself. In the blink of an eye—30 years (I have big eyes)—he was all grown up. I checked back on him, expecting him to be a chip off the old block. Instead, I found him larking around Judea with a bunch of guys. I was devastated.

It's just an "alternative lifestyle" until it hits home. Naturally, I blamed myself. I had been a bad father. I should've been there with him more. Oh why didn't I leave him with manly Centurions instead of wimpy furniture makers? I went away to do some serious soul searching in one of my other universes. Finally, I came to terms with it. He is what he is, and as long as he's happy, I'll be happy for him.

I came back expecting to have a happy reunion with my son, only to find that he'd been the victim of a local kangaroo court. This was the real tragedy I could have actually stopped. I let my silly, irrelevant ignorance take me over when I should've been helping my son.

Please don't make the same mistake I did. Accept, embrace and help people, no matter their romantic inclinations, to build families and lives.

Re: Re: Interesting subject...

satsang said:

Well, I think buggery is beautiful so long as I'm not on the down side of it. AIDS is doing a pretty good job of thinning the crowd out, so we heterosexuals have no fear of becoming a minority. There's plenty of government money available for free health care, without qualification. So, why not? Time will demonstrate what works. And if you can't wait for the ending, read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. History always repeats itself - until we get the lesson.

Click to expand...

I'm gay, by the way, and, not only do I have many friends who've survived the AIDS epidemic, but have thrived since the 80's. No offense but I've seen a lot more gay unions last longer than some straight marriages I know of. Oh, and the Roman Empire had a lot of stupid stupid leaders...just like...ummm...Dubya! Does that make him gay, too...?

Ok...back to the issue at hand...I don't think marriage should be extended to my brethren...why? It's religious! I think it's best to keep church and state separate, not mix the two, and marriage certainly mixes the two.

Oh, by the way, you're in a figure skating forum

Re: Re: Re: Interesting subject...

thisthingcalledlove said:

Ok...back to the issue at hand...I don't think marriage should be extended to my brethren...why? It's religious! I think it's best to keep church and state separate, not mix the two, and marriage certainly mixes the two.

Click to expand...

Um... marriage is not religious.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting subject...

windspirit said:

Um... marriage is not religious.

Click to expand...

Ummm...how is marriage NOT religious? The reasons why mostly church groups and right-wing republicans are opposing gay marriages is due to religion. Now, I admit, marriage is an icon of religion, so let's keep marriage for straight people (the reason the churches won't allow gays to marry is they can't reproduce, and its 'unnatural'.)

"Read up on the Roman Empire and you'll see where this trail ultimately leads. -- Satsang

Click to expand...

I think Satsang means the Greeks. Alexander the Great conquered everybody he could find. But, being gay, he died without leaving a natural heir. The empire immediately fell apart.

Richard the Lionhearted, on the other hand, had to endure the embarrassment of his mother (Eleanor of Aquitaine) periodically showing up in his military camps and publicly berating him for spending all his time in the tents of his soldiers instead of doing his duty to the crown. Namely, get married (to a woman) and produce an heir. He didn't, and the dreaded King John ascended to the throne, with his twelve-year-old bride.

About religion, politics and marriage, my favorite is Henry, the Eight of that Name to Rule England. The Pope told him he couldn't divorce or behead his wife, so he denounced popery and started the Church of England.

Mathman

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting subject...

I've held off commenting on this topic for quite a while, because it hits a little too close, but that's also the reason that I'm finally saying something. There's been quite a bit of philosophizing in here as if this is some abstract conceptual debate. It isn't, and I think people who are materially affected have a responsibility to speak up.

Marriage is both a religious ceremony and a civil contract. There are already churches that will "marry" gays or bless "unions" (same thing!). There are a lot of churches that won't. "Legal" marriage does not require a religious ceremony. We're not talking about forcing churches to marry gays. We're talking about extending the contractual rights of civil marriage (tax benefits, rights of survivorship, health benefits, etc) to consenting adult couples regardless of their genders. (By the way, with those rights go responsibilities- for example, you assume each other's debts.)

I really don't care what it's called; civil unions will work just fine. It will acknowledge the reality in which many people now live- they are responsible for each other, but that is not recognized officially (i.e. legally). I'll give just one modest, specific example: since I'm not legally married to my partner (and I can't marry him as we are the same sex), I cannot use sick leave or family emergency leave to care for him while he is ill. This is despite the fact that my employer has a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. Go figure.

I think that legal acknowledgement of gay relationships is just; it also does not require that people approve or accept them, but only tolerate them. For me, I find acceptance much the preferable, but tolerance will work just fine. If people can't do either, then we are enemies, make no mistake, but unless they're willing to back it up with violence (as some clearly are) then that won't really bother all that much either.

Hi Sk8fan!

100% totally agree with each and every thing you said. This issue does get sticky because of the seemingly interchangeable word "marriage" which is used to describe both the legal union as well as the religious union. That truly is two completely different things. I wish that somehow a formal distinction in terms could be broadly made. I think more people would support the idea of legal unions between same sex couples if the word "marriage" could be reserved for the religious side, and we could call the "marriage certificate" and civil ceremonies something else.

I couldn't agree with you more that both rights AND responsibilities should be extended to people willing to make the commitment.

What "gets" me most about the debate is both heterosexual and homosexual people who want the benefits (i.e. ability to get on each other's health insurance) WITHOUT the responsibilities that come with a legal union (debt is a great example IMHO!).

I hope that one day in your state that you and your partner are able to make your union legal, formalize your commitment to one another, and enjoy the benefits and responsbilities of your partnership.

Happy New Year to you both!

DG

Of course the responsibilities would go with the benefits. That's why I think that people who commit to living as a "household" is a good term. to cover the various situations. A legal term without religious or romantic implications( which shouldn't be the business of government or legal entities IMO ). There are more and more situations where adults are committed to living as a family unit but are not entitled to any of the benefits given to the tradfitional husband wife famly unit. These folks are just as committed to their "household" and very often maintain the relationships longer than traditional married couples. I don't think these people want something for nothing or are trying to get out of being responsible. Anyone who has ever lived with and/or been care giver for another person other than their husband/wife can attest that these are some of the most committed and dedicated relationships under very difficult circumstances.

Piel

Hi Piel...

You raise such a good point. The bottom line for me lies in the concept of "benefits" AND "responsibilities." There should be room in the legal system for all of this. My only objection ever has been going for the benefits without the responsibilities.

I actually just got off the phone with my Mom. I love both of my folks dearly and now that they are both in their 70's, I try to enjoy every opportunity I have to be with them, and equally avoid thoughts of what it will be like when they are gone. Family is definitely a strong component of my life, and that also means that taking care of family is very important.

If something were to happen to my Dad, my Mom would be lost on some levels. He's always been the one to "take care of business." My Mom is a hard worker, but doesn't know squat about the importance of health insurance and stuff like that. Always my Dad's domain. If something happened to Dad and Mom needed a place to go, my home will be open. The same would be true in reverse, or if something ever happened to my brothers or their spouses. Taking care of immediate family is a value I think has been larely lost in our culture. I DO think some provisions to help people who are supporting family are important.

Just assuming that those of us who believe in that could suggest improvements to the existing system, how would that work? The most important criteria for me would be how to extend benefits (and also responsibilities) while containing costs and being fair to all? I will be first in line to write a letter to my cogressperson should a good concept come forward.

Piel, I truly look forward to your ideas!! The toughest part is figuring out a system that would accomplish the intention without creating a forum for massive abuse of a system. Unfortunate, but true in our society (IMHO).

DG

Re: Interesting subject...

thisthingcalledlove said:

Ummm...how is marriage NOT religious?

Click to expand...

May be, but doesn't have to be. The term, as well as the idea of "marriage" doesn't belong to any religion; marriage doesn't equal religion. My parents are *married*; no church was involved in it.

Btw, did you know that in the Pope's own country, Poland, a marriage in church was legally invalid till a few years ago?

Mathman said:

About religion, politics and marriage, my favorite is Henry, the Eight of that Name to Rule England. The Pope told him he couldn't divorce or behead his wife, so he denounced popery and started the Church of England.

Click to expand...

I was just watching Eddie Izzard and his version of how it happened.