The Associated Press
John Lewis is one of several plaintiffs suing to legalize gay marriage in California.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 19 weeks 5 days ago
California's Supreme Court takes up gay marriage
As gay-rights groups call for marital equality and opponents warn of a public backlash, societal decay and religious conflict, the California Supreme Court is prepared for an epic three-hour hearing Tuesday on the constitutionality of the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Should states have the right to define what marriage means? Should the issue be settled with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Or should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?
Thoughts
I find it hard to believe why "gay marriage" is a problem...
Submitted on March 7th, 2008 by AnonymousIt seems that the arguments used against some couples getting married are based on one's religious preference or queasiness at what goes on in a couple's bedroom.
On one hand the anti-gay marriage arguments I've heard/read cite religion and the pro-gay marriage arguments lean toward the legal protections that come with being a legally married couple.
This leads me to believe that there are two forms of marriage, the religious based ceremony/tradition/rites and the secular based "legal marriage" that triggers the legal stuff (power of attorney, legally being listed as next of kin for emergency purposes, tax stuff, insurance stuff, etc...)
So why not find some way to divide the two types of marriage? Let those who want to restrict marriage based on the plumbing you were born with, keep their religiously pure form of marriage (which would have no legal bases, trigger no legal 'perks', and wouldn't need to be recognized by a State -- maybe Separation of Church and State would apply). The other secular based marriage would trigger the legal part of marriage (as listed above).
If the anti-gay marriage folks are ONLY against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs (which they freely choose to follow) then there shouldn't be a problem. (I personally feel that the anti-gay marriage crowd are using their religion as an excuse to be bigots, other states have the anti-gay marriage crowd pressing for legislation that keeps ANY unmarried couple -regardless of sexuality- from being able to adopt or foster children.)
Responding to anther comment as to why there are things like tax breaks for married couples:
It could be to try to enforce the idea that marriage is a good thing.
It could be that way back in the day when a family could be supported by one spouse working full time on minimum wage plus the employer benefits, it helped to make the money that was earned by the spouse last a bit longer.
It could also be a way to reward those who live together in groups. Living in the same household is somebody else can be more efficient than living separately (instead of having two TV's on at two houses, there might only be one TV on; instead of two friges there is only need for one; more likely to share a vehicle instead of having two...).
There is also the automatic power of attorney that kicks in when you and your spouse are legally married, if you are unconscious your spouse has the legal right to make decisions that you are unable to. If you die then your spouse is able to take control of your assets. If you're in a horrible car accident your spouse can be listed as your emergency contact (some hospitals can be pricks about who they will call if you wind up in the emergency room.)
Government decides, not defines
Submitted on March 5th, 2008 by AnonymousI agree with the first commenter. Why is marriage in any form the business of the government? But, nevertheless, it is, so let's look at it:
Supporters of traditional marriage argue that the traditional family structure is very important for healthy children, and thus for society. No argument there. But in what way does extending benefits to gay couples adversely affect traditional couples? And how is keeping the benefits of marriage from non-traditional couples good for society? The underlying assumption is that marriage can be somehow encouraged or discouraged by the government by the benefits (spousal rights, tax breaks, etc.) it offers to married couples. But who gets married just for the legal benefits? If the government has that kind of influence, wouldn't it just encourage unloving couples to get married out of convenience? That's not good for society. On a deeper level, opposition to gay marriage assumes that sexual orientation is a choice. It's not like a gay person is just going to decide to "go straight" and start a family because of how the government defines marriage.
Legal benefits or not, dedicated gay couples exist, and dedicated gay couples with children exist. That's not illegal. Since they exist, isn't it better to offer them the legal benefits which make their lives easier and more secure? Even if you think these families are less than ideal, why is it bad to help them out like any other family? Many kinds of straight-couple families are less than ideal, but they all get their benefits.
Ultimately, the state and federal governments do not define marriage in reality anyway. They merely define it as a legal classification that is used to grant or deny legal benefits. In other words, they don't define the concept, they only decide who gets to use the word in a legal sense.
End State Endorsed Marriage
Submitted on March 4th, 2008 by AnonymousWhy are we required to get a marriage certificate to get married? Why are the married taxed less at all? Why does the government have any say at all in a religious ceremony (marriage)? Instead of fighting Gay marriage at any governmental level, we should be fighting for low flat tax rates, and let whatever church lovers belong to, decide what is right and wrong when it comes to uniting a couple.
Gay marriage opposed by corporations.
Submitted on March 4th, 2008 by AnonymousMost opposition to gay marriage comes from corporations that don't want the cost of extending benefits to partners. They just manipulate the right wing to help push their agenda.
Gay Marriage
Submitted on March 4th, 2008 by AnonymousMarriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com