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

[Ptichka]

With Massachusetts court having approved same-sex marriages (or rather finding that denying them is unconstitutional), I was wondering what do people on this board think. I know this question came up before, but I got the feeling some people did not feel comfortable expressing their views. So I figured I'd post a poll so people can weigh in anonimously.

 

[Tonichelle]

just a reminder to keep this discussion civil... there will be a lot of different feelings and I can just see flame wars and hurt feelings sneaking into this thread...

 

[Antilles]

I am very happy about it. Equality is a good thing.

 

[sk8tngcanuck]

!!

Firstly, allow me to say that I am neither gay,nor do I even know one homosexual person.

I am totally 100 % in favour of permitting such unions. I personally do not feel that the sex of the person whom you choose to make your life partner should matter even one iota when it comes to such issues. I find it appalling and utterly ridiculous that there is even an issue with the things that "normal" married couples take for granted. I will never forget the argument I had with my father over this very issue. He is a very traditional man, actually, in my opinion, I also think he is somewhat racist and narrow minded, but hey, he is my dad and I love him faults and all, lol!

Anyways, this is the perspective that I put it into for him and for once he actually finally had to agree that I won an argument.

Imagine that I, your daughter, am a lesbian. You have never agreed with my choice of lifestyle, and refuse to acknowledge my partner with whom I have lived for 20 years. We own a home together, and for the past 10 years I have stayed home and raised 2 wonderful children. My "friend" works full time at a company with great benefits. For the past 12 years, since she started with this company, I have been included in her medical benefits. My name is one of those generic names, so there was never a question of my sex. I suddenly become extremely ill. It turns out I must have a heart transplant to survive. The company that we have paid benefits to for the past 12 years suddenly realizes that I am female, and they send a letter stating that unfortunately there was an oversight and because we are of the same sex, they will not recognize us as spouses therefore, no coverage.

For 10 years I have stayed home, kept house, raised children, provided meals for the four of us, done all laundry, and all the things that my mother does. Why am I any different? The medical company would never refuse to pay for mom's surgery, so why should mine be any different. My illness is not a result of my sexual orientation, yet your daughter will die because she chose to spend her life with another woman, rather than a man. Why should my life be valued any less? Why should the things I have done as a wife and a mom be lessened because of my sexual orientation?

I don't necessarily think that marriage in the traditional sense should be permitted for same sex couples, but I think their unions should not be regarded as lesser than the union of a man and a woman. They are 2 human beings that chose to spend their lives together. What they have between their legs should have absolutely no bearing.

 

[Mathman]

Here's an interesting quote from today's newpaper about this:

"People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard." -- Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States.

So I take this to mean that the Bush administration supports gay marriage.

 

[Tonichelle]

the Bush Administration is confusing me as of late... probably in order to make friends for the election that's coming up(when can we expect election bombardment? This is the first time I am allowed to vote!!! ) They've been contradicting a lot of their statements as of late...

*shrugs* who knows... politicians are confusing no matter WHO they "work" for.

 

[heyang]

Mathman,

Dick Cheney is speaking for himself. I read in the NY times that Dick Cheney has a daughter(? or some other close relative) who is openly gay.

Bush has made his feelings clear. He is ok with civil unions, but would not use the word marriage for a same-sex couple.

I'm really bad about following politics with regard to true policy as opposed to media rhetoric and buzz words. As in the general population, both of our major political parties consist of a diverse group of people. There are several Republicans who disagree with Bush's view and there are Democrats who agree.

For me personally, denying a couple of marriage (regardless of sexuality) is interference in a personal matter. The government should only legislate matters which are generally not applicable to private aspects of a citizen's life when it does not place the general population at risk. Thus, I view gun control as a government matter as opposed to matters of the bedroom between 2 consenting adults.

A lot of this issue has to do with each individual's personal comfort level which I can respect while disagreeing. Just don't feel this is something that should be legislated against as it relates to individual personal lives and does not hurt society.

 

[Suzy]

Civil union maybe, marriage no.

As for gays living together and wanting to get on the other's health coverage, how many people would abuse this type of arrangement. Say someone has no job and then claims he/she is the partner of another same sex person and it's not true but just want health coverage. How often will something like that be abused?

 

[heyang]

As for gays living together and wanting to get on the other's health coverage, how many people would abuse this type of arrangement

It wouldn't be only gay people abusing the ability to get health coverage. Many companies that are allowing health coverage for domestic partners include BOTH heterosexual and homosexual couples living together.

The company usually requires that the employee sign an affadavit swearing to their living status and nature of relationship. This is considered a legal document and could be grounds for dismissal from the job if it is proven that the people living together are not in a 'relationship'. It'd be nice if they could add elder care for people who have parents living with them that don't have adequate health insurance, too.

 

[Kasey]

I voted to give them all the rights of a married couple...Maybe I'm pretty liberal. But, the happiest and most successful couple I know are B and S, two men I work with. They've been together about 12 years, and are very happy and successful people. Being a solo person who has yet to meet that special someone, I am in total favor of anyone who finds true love, regardless of gender. I hope I'm lucky enough to have that one day.

Kasey

PS...oh yeah, and I'm a nurse....I would much rather people be able to be under insurance coverage as same sex significant others, whether it is valid or not, than have the number of people we take care of with NO insurance coverage at all. Generally speaking, the hospital eats most of the cost of caring for such patients....which increases cost of health care, insurance premiums, medications, etc, for all of the rest of us. (Anyone who's been in the hospital, gotten an itemized bill and sees a charge of $12 for two Tylenol, you've just paid for part of an uninsured visit...fun, huh??)

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Why not?

With the USA divorce rate at 60 percent and climbing, we have to talk about traditions in terms of divorce as well as marriage. One of my favorite cartoons in the Newyorker, some years ago. showed a daughter talking to her mother and saying: "I think Fred would make a wonderful first husband". American divorces are part of the heterosexual life style. Does the bible condone divorce?

Secondly, if we are talking about equal rights (oh, how some contented people hate that phrase), is anyone group of Americans in our global community excluded? If so them we should set up rules about having gays stand in the rear of the bus and have separate water fountains in public places.

Trust me, there are god fearing americans who would want just that.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

I read an interesting quote from the dissenting opinion of the Massachusetts court: People have a constututional right to marry. But gay unions introduce a new "right" not foreseen by the founding fathers."

In other words, in this judg's opinion everyone has a right to get married. But you don't have a right to get married to the person that you want to marry.:sheesh:

Mathman

 

[Piel]

I But gay unions introduce a new "right" not foreseen by the founding fathers."
Mathman

Yea right. More like "forseen but not talked about by the founding fathers".LOL

BTW, where were the founding mothers during all of this :\ ?

Piel

 

[Tonichelle]

Does the bible condone divorce?

not trying to open a can of worms... but the Bible says that God

1. HATES divorce
and
2. Only permitts it in the case of sexual immorality(ie affair) and that the two parties should NOT remarry...

but then, number 2 is where a lot of Theologians argue...

 

[Doggygirl]

Interesting subject...

I am heterosexual, but have many gay and lesbian friends, some of whhich are in long term partnerships.

I personally think this subject becomes confusing since "marriage" is the term used for the legal side of a union, as well as the often religious side of a union. I was "married" in the court house in front of a judge, so for purposes of this conversation I think of that as a "legal union." I don't think that the government should ever take a position to "force" any religious organizations to condone unions that are inconsistent with the religeous beliefs of that organization.

As part of my legal union with my husband, we both enjoy certain rights as well as responsibilities. We benefit from tax advantages we would not have as "live-in" partners. We benefit from the ability to both have health insurance from one employer. On the flip side, if 10 years from now my husband left me for a hot little honey or something, I have rights to the property and assets we have accumulated over the years, regardless of who works / doen't work/ made the most money, etc.

I believe that civil unions between commited partners of any sex should be legalized. And I believe the same rights and responsibiilties should apply.

I am not in favor of extending all these rights to same or opposite sex couples who do not make the commitment to form a legal union. (setting aside the issue of common law marriage upheld in some states) The main reason for not extending the "rights" is that the "responsibilities" don't necessarily go with the package. As an example, I have not heard a person who wants the health insurance benefits as a "live in" heterosexual person ALSO clammoring to agree to giving up property or paying child support, etc. in the case of a split.

I have to say I am a bit muddled on the issue of adoption. I guess in a perfect world filled with equally perfect parents, I would say little children might be better off with a mommy and a daddy. HOWEVER....I know gay / lesbian couples who would make far better parents than many heterosexual couples or single parents. So...My own jury is still out on that point and I'm interested in other people's ideas.

DG

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Does love have anything to do with marriage? or is it only the belief of the one god theory that insists marriage is for 2 people of the opposite sex?

Does the one god allow for the divorce of married couples of the opposite sex because in the United States divorce of these blessed marriages runs rampant at about 50 per cent minimum.

Maybe we should just ban marriage since it is not, apparently, taken seriously by the majority of the people.

Joe

 

[Doggygirl]

Love is certainly part of my marriage!!!

I think one of the reasons this topic can be so controversial is that we do tend to mix up a wide variety of highly charged issues into one lump. Love, commitment, legal issues, religious issues in one big heap. The only way I could sanely work through my own feelings on this range of subjects was to consider them somewhat separately, and then put the puzzle back together to see if it fits. (which it seems to for me with the exception of the adoption issue, which I am still conflicted about.)

The topic of "Love" in marriage (religiously or legal union either way) is interesting. I think as a society we have evoled into a "I want what I want right now" kind of mentality (I am speaking in very broad terms here - not assessing any particular individuals on the range scale)

I am sure that many people just like me here have parents who have stayed married for 40+ years, Grandparents who stayed married 50,60 or more + years, and Great Grandparents who stayed married even longer. This is just my own observation, but growing up and considering this family scenario has demonstrated a very important point. None of these people had "staying power" that long because the "heat" of their early meetings lasted for that long. They were true to their commitments. Their love for each other evolved over time into something very deep - a kind of love we see far less frequently today. I'm sure surviving difficult times like the Great Depression (which I don't qualify for) made a difference - for many during those times family was all they had.

My first post on this thread didn't begin to speculate on the "love" component - only my thoughts on the legal aspects.

I am personally glad to have the legal benefits of marriage. An example I have in mind is this. If my husband and I did not have a will or trust (we do now, but we did not for our first couple years), and I died unexpectedly in a car accident, my assets would most likely go to my husband, which is what I would want. If we had decided to just live together and that happened, it would be much more cloudy.

That's the kind of legal protection I believe should be available to same sex couples who want to make that committment.

Let's just say marriage for everyone was banned. So people who choose to live together and potentially have children (natural or adopted) had no legal protection. Let's take a scenario where one partner works for the bacon, and the other partner keeps up the house and raises the kids. Now let's say the bacon partner dies unexpectedly (or even expectedly of an illness or something). What legal protections exist for the stay at home family caretaker and the children? Would the assets of the bacon person go to their mother / brother / etc.?

I'm not saying the marriage / union thing is perfect, and I would say that for me, it won't be perfect until same sex couples are allowed to legally form unions across the board (with both benefits and responsibilities in tact). But...I think a system where there was no thing called marriage or legal union would be far less perfect than this one.

Just my 2 cents..

DG

 

[God]

Here are some of my humble though divine opinions on the matter:

Weddings involve elaborate decorations, sculpted desserts, frilly dresses and occasionally, Elvis impersonators. The fact that such campy affairs are twisted into a heterosexual institution is a perversion...

If I had intended for persons of opposing genders to cohabit, I'd make damn sure everyone could use the toilet sitting down...

Same-sex couples can have children, they just haven't been trying hard enough. Although David Letterman's newly minted fatherhood comes close...

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Nicely put, Doggiegirl - I guess love is a many splendored thing and marriage is an exonomics necessity. Personally, I think the gays are entitled to the economic necessity. Why not and if the word marriage betweenf opposite sexes with its probable divorce is frightening for some people, then Civl Unions should be valid for gays and let them figure out divorce and condone it as the opposite sexes do.

Joe

 

[John King]

I'd say legalize it.But befor the gay community gets overjoyed at the prospect,remember that means that Gays and Lesbians will also face divorce.That might not be as appealing to some.